Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/1459/2023 of T. Surendranadha Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 16 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 1459/2023 Between: 1. T. SURENDRANADHA REDDY, S/OJAYARAMA REDDY, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC.MPHA (M), SUB-CENTER
APHC010029112023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
WRIT PETITION NO: 1459/2023
Between:
1. T. SURENDRANADHA REDDY, S/OJAYARAMA REDDY, AGED 48
YEARS, OCC.MPHA (M), SUB-CENTER JANGALAPALLI, PHC
YADAMARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
HEALTH
MEDICAL
AND
FAMILY
WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, STATE OF AP, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT SELECTION
COMMITTEE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR.
4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT,CHITTOOR
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not regularizing the petitioner's service as MPHA (M), basing on the proposals submitted vide Rc.No.29/PHC/YDM/2019, dated 24-8-2019 and issuing the consequential proceeding.Rc.No.105 /Al/DM0/2019, dated 8-1-2020 without regularizing the petitioner's service as illegal arbitrary and discrimination and
consequentially the Hon'ble Court may pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service from the date of appointment as MPHA(M) i.e 27-11-2013 on par with others, with all consequential benefits including promotion, by set asiding the impugned proceeding dated 8-1-2020
and may 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 be pleased to direct the respondent to considered the proposals submitted vide Rc.No.29/PHC/YDM/2019, dated 24-8-2019 for regularization of the petitioner's service as MPHA (M), subject to outcome of the results in WP.No.1790/2008, pending disposal of the present Writ petition and may pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 may be pleased to grant leave to the respondents to file counter affidavit in WP.no. 1459 of 2023 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. BALA RAMESH YALAVARTHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES IV
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
WRIT PETITION NO: 1459/2023
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:
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner’s service as MPHA (M) in pursuance to the appointment made vide R.C.No.221/DMO/A1/2021, dated 27.11.2013 and consequential proposals submitted vide Rc.No.29/PHC/YDM/2019, dated 24.08.2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was appointed on 27.11.2013 his services are not regularized and now he is seeking to regularize the services of the petitioner, as he has successfully completed the period of probation.
2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submitted that the qualification possessed by the petitioner was obtained from an institute which was not recognized as on the date of issuance of the said certificate and, therefore, the petitioner is not qualified. However, considering the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.1790 of 2008 and batch, the appointments of the petitioners were made subject to the following condition : “The selection of Sri.T.Surendranath Reddy to the post of MPHA(M) is made in accordance to the orders of the Hon’ble APAT, Hyderabad vide O.A.No.8501 of 2013, dated 30.04.2013, on subject to outcome of W.P.No.1790 of 2008 and batch pending of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.”
3. As such, the appointment of the petitioner was made subject to the outcome of W.P.No.1790 of 2008 and batch. The said batch of writ petitions are pending consideration before this Court as on date. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for regularization cannot be considered until appropriate orders are passed in the said batch of writ petitions.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and having regard to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (APSSR, 1996)1, Rule 18(b)(ii), relating to declaration of probation, specifies as follows:
“If no order as referred to in sub-rule(a) is issued within one year from the date of expiry of the prescribed or extended period of probation, the probationer shall, subject to other provisions of these rules, be deemed to have completed satisfactorily his probation with retrospective effect from the date of expiry of the prescribed or extended period of probation and a formal order to that effect may be issued for purpose of record”.
5. In the event of non-declaration of probation after completion of the prescribed period of probation, it shall be deemed that the probation has been completed with effect from the date on which the prescribed period of probation was completed, unless the probation is extended.
6. In the instant case, admittedly, no proceedings for extending the period of probation has been passed. As such, the petitioner is entitled to have his probation declared upon completion of the prescribed period of probation. However, as the appointment itself was made subject to the outcome of 1 APSSR, 1996
W.P.No.1790 of 2008 and batch, and the said writ petitions are still pending consideration before this Court. If the issue is ultimately decided against the petitioner, he would have to suffer the consequences, as his appointment is subject to the outcome of the said writ petition. Declaration of probation, therefore, shall not come in the way of the authorities in taking appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with the result of the said writ petition. Any action contrary to Rule 18(b)(ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, cannot be sustained.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to declare the probation of the petitioner with effect from the date on which the prescribed period of probation was completed, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J Date: 17.08.2026 CMK
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
WRIT PETITION NO: 1459/2023
Date: 17.08.2026 CMK