Inter-state staff allocation beyond our ambit: HC junks AP surgeon PIL seeking transfer to Telangana

Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice A Rajasekhar Reddy clarified that options given by the employees of both AP and Telangana at the time of the division of staff among the twin states do not confer any right on them.

The petitioner's counsel at the time of arguments submitted that the petitioner's husband is a doctor in the State of Telangana and the petitioner has a minor child and she is taking care of the child all by herself in Andhra Pradesh.

The petitioner doctor was allotted to Andhra Pradesh at the time of staff division despite her option to work with Telangana.

Also Read: Telangana HC extends stay on Medical Council elections, tells State to reduce number of nominated persons

The respondent counsel informed the court that the petitioner had submitted the option claiming to be local to the Residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and opted for allotment to the State of Telangana. As per seniority and rank, the petitioner was tentatively allocated to Andhra Pradesh, and the authorities had invited online representations from those aggrieved by their tentative allocation within two weeks from the date of publication of the notification.

After hearing both the parties, the court stated that the divisions were made on the basis of the recommendations of the experts present in the advisory committee who were aware of the administration process. The court, therefore, refused to interfere with the process as the petitioner had failed to make any valid point that would require the court to intervene.

The bench further observed that the committee and the officials had concluded that the doctor is a native of Andhra Pradesh and had allocated her after probing her school education certificates, etc. The guidelines issued by the committee for allocating an employee were correlating the local candidature/nativity of the employee with the option for allocation along with the seniority of the employee.

It also stressed the relevance of the term, 'local candidature' mentioned in both the successor states under the service rules of the employees. It noted that she was appointed just a few months before appointment day.

The bench added that she falls into the definition of a local candidate in Andhra Pradesh, where she had studied from fourth class to 10th class. She had been allotted the said post in Zone -3 of the united Andhra Pradesh, reports Deccan Chronicle.

The bench added that the petitioner did not present any objection when enough time was given by the experts' committee and the authorities of both states to the employees so that they could present their objections to the tentative allocations. The tentative allocation list was issued on July 14, 2016, which provided a time period of 14 days for the employees to raise objections. However, the petitioner had not raised any objection at that given time, the court was informed, reports The New Indian Express.

Times of India reports that the committee had recommended the final allocation of the list of employees after considering all the representations of other employees and all the objections they raised.

Subsequently, the bench noted,

"Now we cannot interfere in the matter because the petitioner is citing personal difficulties which cannot be taken as a ground at this stage."

Also Read: Plea challenges KNRUHS MBBS first year Exam Pattern: HC issues Notice to NMC, Health Ministry