Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, JJ.
Dr. Machiraju Vasudeva Murali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India represented by its Under Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.38658 and 42109 of 2016, 996, 1197, 3055, 3056, 3295, 3296, 3298, 3299, 3300, 3301, 3302, 3544, 4560, 4561, 4586, 4588, 6857, 6890, 6902, 6904, 7052, 7146, 7148, 7150, 7154, 7156, 7157, 7159, 7160, 7161, 7215, 7342, 7355, 7514, 7573, 7642, 7646, 7677, 7907, 7942, 8315, 8347, 8523, 8558, 8664, 9358, 9364, 9393, 9621, 9660, 10264, 10924, 11067, 11089, 11642, 14560, 18118 and 18138 of 2017 and 19616 of 2019
Decided on : 21-03-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions shared common controversy. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner's challenge against allocation process. (Para 3) |
| 3. background of petitioner's education and claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. challenges facing the petitioner includes personal hardships. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. arguments by respondents validating allocation process. (Para 9) |
| 6. the allocation process followed statutory provisions. (Para 10) |
| 7. court reviewed arguments and evidence. (Para 11) |
| 8. legal frameworks dictate service allocation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 9. constitutional validity maintains, no interference needed. (Para 19) |
| 10. judicial review of executive instructions affirms legality. (Para 24 , 25 , 28) |
| 11. final decisions on various petitions align to local status. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 12. reaffirmation of allocations concerning education history. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 13. further cases uphold allocation criteria based on local status. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 14. allocation decisions consistent with geographical constraints. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 15. no demonstrable discrimination identified in allocations. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 16. validity of allocation sustained based on evidence. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 17. consistency maintained in allocation decisions. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 18. allocations reaffirmed with respect to derived local status. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 19. allocation process upheld as legal and appropriate. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82) |
| 20. constitutional challenges met with statutory justification. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 21. final allocation settlements consistent with educational backgrounds. (Para 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92) |
| 22. court affirms allocation criteria, findings are just. (Para 93 , 94 , 95 , 96) |
| 23. petition outcomes reflect adherence to executive instructions. (Para 97 , 98 , 99 , 100) |
| 24. finality expressed in allocation not subject to arbitrary review. (Para 101 , 102 , 103 , 104) |
| 25. all allegations of procedural lapse dismissed. (Para 105 , 106 , 107 , 108) |
| 26. all challenges lack evidentiary basis for interference. (Para 109 , 110 , 111 , 112) |
| 27. court concludes legal provisions enforced correctly. (Para 113 , 114 , 115 , 116) |
ORDER :
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court.
2. The facts of the W.P.No.14560 of 2017 are as follows:-
The petitioner, who is a Doctor and has been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh, has filed this present petition challenging the legality and validity of the executive instructions issued by the General Administration Department, dated 30.10.2014, in respect of the allocation of employees to the State of Telangana and to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner has also challenged the allocation of the petitioner vide order dated 22.02.2017, 23.02.2017 and 25.02.2017. Meaning thereby, the petitioner has challenged the allocation and rejection of the representation. The facts of the case further reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the year 2011. The petitioner has stated that she has obtained M.B.B.S., from Narayana Medical College, Nellore and post graduation degree from Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Kadapa. She has also stated that she has studied upto Class X in the State of Andhra Pradesh and her subsequent education is also in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner further stated that options were invited for allocation of employees and the petitioner submitted her option for allotment to the State of Telangana, however, in the tentative list of allotment, she was allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, she again submitted an option against tentative allocation, however, final allocation was issued on 22.02.2017 on the ground that she studied upto Class X in the State of Andhra P
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Respondent was entitled to be allocated to the State of Telangana even on spouse ground and the Union of India erred in rejecting the requ....
Allocation of state cadre employees must consider spouse factors and local status as per guidelines under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
