Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/3393/2023 of Dr BAKKA SARADA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 31 August 2026
1 APHC010064632023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 3393 OF 2023 Between: 1. Dr BAKKA SARADA, W/o. Dr. K. Penchalaiah, Aged 51 years,
P a g e | 1
APHC010064632023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
Between:
1. Dr BAKKA SARADA, W/o. Dr. K. Penchalaiah, Aged 51 years, Associate Professor, Radio Diagnosis, O/o. Kumool Medical College, Kurnool R/o. Flat No.101, Venkat Sai Enclave Apartment, Sai Ramachandra Nagar, Near Aayush Hospital, Vijayawada (Urban) - 520008.
...Petitioner
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by its principal Secretary Department of Health, Medical and Family Welfare, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
2. Director of Medical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Old General Hospital premises, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada, Krishna District-
520003.
3. Dr M Padmalatha, W/o. R. Chandra Sekhar, Aged 43 years O/o. Associate Professor, Government Medical College, Nandyal.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or Direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in considering the Spouse factor for the promotion of 3rd Respondent as P a g e | 2
Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis despite her husband being a P.G.
Student without considering the spouse factor of the Petitioner in the counseling conducted on 29.01.2023 for promotions to the posts of Professor for panel year 2022-23 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and a consequential direction to the Respondents to consider the spouse factor of the Petitioner by considering her representation dated 30.01.2023 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the promotions of the Associate Professors to the post of Professors in the Department of Radiogiagnosis in pursuant to the counseling held on 29.01.2023 for the panel year 2022-23 forthwith to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 30.01.2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: ARUN SHOWRI G
Counsel for the Respondents: P THIRUMALA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES IV
The Court made the following order:
P a g e | 3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “………… to issue any appropriate Writ, order or Direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in considering the Spouse factor for the promotion of 3rd Respondent as Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis despite her husband being a P.G. Student without considering the spouse factor of the Petitioner in the counseling conducted on 29.01.2023 for promotions to the posts of Professor for panel year 2022-23 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and a consequential direction to the Respondents to consider the spouse factor of the Petitioner by considering her representation dated 30.01.2023…..”
2. Heard Sri G. Arun Showri, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri K.Varun Shyam Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri P. Tirumala Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
3. Petitioner’s grievance is that her case was not considered for posting in accordance with the Transfer Policy issued vide G.O.Ms.No.273, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, dated 21.05.1999. According to the petitioner, her husband is working as a Professor in Kurnool Medical College and, therefore, her case ought to have been considered in terms of the said Transfer Policy. However, the case of Respondent No.3 was considered for P a g e | 4
posting at Nandyal on the ground that her husband was working as a Civil Assistant Surgeon and was then pursuing his post-graduation at Medical College, Nandyal. Accordingly, Respondent No.3 was posted at Nandyal.
4. Aggrieved by non-consideration of her case, petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.01.2023 before the Director of Medical Education, seeking redressal of her grievance. But the said representation has not been considered and no orders have been passed thereon so far.
5. It seems that the matter pertains to the year 2023 and the circumstances prevailing at the relevant point of time may have undergone a change in the meantime. In particular, the circumstance on the basis of which respondent No.3 was granted posting at Nandyal may no longer be subsisting. Therefore, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court considers it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 30.01.2023 submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with the applicable Transfer Policy and the rules governing the matter.
6. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 30.01.2023 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with applicable rules and law, after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances prevailing as on the date of consideration, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
P a g e | 5
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim. Respondent No.2 shall consider the representation independently and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.
8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 01.09.2026 SAK
P a g e | 6
Date: 01.09.2026
SAK