IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Pulla Karthik, J.
Dr.P.Krishna Malakonda Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 20489 of 2025
Decided On : 26-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's background and issues with promotion. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the right to forego promotion. (Para 3) |
| 3. government's rationale for promotions based on administrative necessity. (Para 4) |
| 4. issues related to non-teaching promotion. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 5. legal implications of failing to join promoted post. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 6. critique of the public interest justification for promotions. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. final decision to set aside the government order. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
PULLA KARTHIK, J.
Heard Sri L.Ravi Chander, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Bobbili Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.
2) The case of the petitioner is that he is presently working as senior-most Professor of Cardiology at Osmania Medical College i.e. respondent No.3 College and serving as Head of the Department of Cardiology. Further, he has successfully completed DM (Cardiology) and chose to serve in the Government sector. Further, as a Super Specialist in Cardiology, he treated thousands of heart patients who could not afford private healthcare. Further, during Covid-19 pandemic also, he rendered dedicated service and successfully treated numerous Covid-19 patients. While so, during general transfers-2024, the petitioner requested the respondents to transfer him to Warangal. However, as his services are very much essential in respondent No.3 hospital as he is the senior-most Doctor in the Super Specialty of Cardiology for PG Teaching and patient care, the respondents have retained him in respondent No.3 Hospital. It is further averred that by showing the name of the petitioner, respondents made the National Medical Council to allot cardiology seats. While so, respondent No.1 having decided to effect promotions on a temporary basis to the posts of Additional Director of Medical Education including Principal of a Medical College and Superintendent of a Teaching General Hospital, has directed all the eligible Professors, including the petitioner, to submit Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) of the candidates to be promoted. As the petitioner is keenly interested in teaching and also due to his mother’s health condition, which requires continuous medication and regular follow-up and also due to other personal and family reasons, he submitted an option form dated 28.06.2025 requesting the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Principal in any one of the five medical colleges at Sanga Reddy, Quthbullapur, Vikarabad, Hanumakonda and Nalgonda. However, without considering the said options, the respondents, under the guise of promotion, have transferred the petitioner to a non-teaching post i.e. Superintendent of Government General Hospital, Nizamabad, vide impugned G.O. dated 07.07.2025. But, as the petitioner is not in a position to discharge the administrative responsibilities and also lack of interest in administrative work, he submitted a representation dated 09.07.2025 requesting the respondents to permit him to forego the promotion, retain and continue him in the post of Professor of Cardiology and HOD (Cardiology), Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad. However, without considering his representation, the respondents are compelling the petitioner to accept the promotion, taking steps to relieve him from the post of Professor of Cardiology and HOD (Cardiology), Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, and also to fill up the said post with another person. Therefore, the action of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Rule 11 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules.
3) Learned senior counsel has contended that as per Rule 11 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, all the candidates who are promoted are entitled to forego their promotion and nobod
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.