MOHD HYDER KHAN SUPERINTENDENT GANDHI HOSPITAL AND PROFESSOR GANDHI MEDICAL COLLEGE HYDERABAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who worked as Superintendent of Gandhi Hospital and Professor of Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad seeks a writ of madamus directing the respondent State and the Osmania University to retain him in service until he attains the age of 60 or transfer him to the Osmania University to which service he previously belonged.

(2.) The facts necessary for the purpose of examining the controversy may be stated : The petitioner was appointed as a Clinical Tutor in the Osmania University on 2nd July, 1949. Thereafter he was appointed as a lecturer on 19th November, 1949, in Clinical Medicine pending final selection and recommendation by the Public Service Commission. Subsequently he was selected by the Public Service Commission and was appointed as a lecturer on 7th March, 1952, on probation for a period of one year. While he was working in the said post the Administrative Control of the Medical College, was transferred to the Government on 27th June, 1952 and thereafter he continued to work in the Government service in different capacities. It was further averred in the petition that the communication of the University, dated 18th March, 1966, to the Director of Medical Services accepting that his teaching experience shall be taken into account for declaring him eligible for Professorship also indicate that he continued to be the member of the University service and in fact in the case of one Fakir Mohammed, the University accepted his service on re-transfer. Further in G.O.Ms. No. 1942, dated 20th October, 1970, the Government undertook the liability to pay the additional pension in respect of persons appointed before 1st April, 1953, by the University authorities and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the said G.O. Lastly it was contended that the order of the Government dated 24th May, 1982, rejecting the relief claimed by him treating him as an employee of the Osmania University was improperly rejected by the Government and the Administrative Tribunal before whom the said order was challenged dismissed his application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute in question and such decision must be treated as one passed without jurisdiction and hence the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The State Government represented by the Secretary to Government, Medical and Health and the Osmania University represented by the Registrar are respondents 1 and 2, respectively. Both the respondents countered the claim of the petitioner broadly stating that on the transfer of the administrative control of the Medical College, the petitioner ceased to be the employee of the University and he was estopped by his conduct to raise the present plea that he continued to be the employee of the University. After the completion of probation he was confirmed by the Government and continued in the service of the Government and secured the advantage of promotion in the Government service and having acquiesced of the situation brought out by his conduct the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this distance of time of nearly thirty years and the present proceedings are also maintainable as the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal is binding on him and the application is also barred fully by laches. It was further urged that G.O.Ms. No. 1942, dated 30th October, 1970, has no application to the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to service benefits on par with Sri Fakir Mohammed as he was a permanent employee, of the University and was transferred without his consent and consequently the principle of discrimination alleged on this ground is clearly untenable.