K. KAVITHA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner before this court is a Doctor by profession, who seeks the following relief:

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the G.O.Rt.No.632, dated 18.11.2019 by which, order the deputation of the 5th respondent in this case is extended by a further period of two years beyond the permitted five year period at the Police Welfare Hospital, Tirupthi. Both the petitioner and the 5th respondent are civil surgeons. By virtue of G.O.(P).No.10 dated 22.01.1993, the terms of deputation of Government servants to Foreign Services has been settled. Although the term 'Foreign Services' is used, as can be seen from this case, these rules are being used for transfers within the country, but to different services. Therefore, the word 'Foreign Service' appears to have been used liberally by all the parties to the dispute including the State as "deputation to a different department ". In this case, the petitioner and the 5th respondent are both claiming to be deputed to the Urban Police Head Quarters Hospital at Tiupathi as Medical Officers. The case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent has already completed five years of deputation to the Police Hospital at Tirupathi. It is her argument that despite orders being passed cancelling the deputation of the 5th respondent, petitioner was not allowed to join the duty. Later, she was allowed to join duty on 03.10.2019. However, on 18.11.2019, the impugned order was passed by which the deputation period of the 5th respondent was again extended for another two years. The essential contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deputation can only extended for five years. In terms of G.O.(P).No.10 dated 22.01.1993 and the subsequent clarifications in G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 02.01.2010 etc., the period of five years is mandatory and in case the employees who have completed five years, can be considered for further deputation only if they work for one year in their parent organization. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 02.01.1993. He relies upon the following clauses:

(3.) In addition, he draws the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 02.01.2020 and more particularly, to clauses 3 and 5 (1), which are as follows: