Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
2016 To 31.08.2021 Not Considered As Per vs Union Of on 20 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No14693 of 2026
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
01. 20.05.2026 GTK,J
Heard,
Mr.Sriman, learned counsel representing Mr.Jaya
Prakash Madasu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
This Writ Petition now being taken up as a House
Motion in pursuance of the permission accorded by the
Hon'ble The Chief Justice.
The principal grievance in the present Writ Petition
by the petitioners embarking upon the non-consideration/
awarding of service weightage marks, who are five in
number, towards the service rendered as Lab Technicians
in eUPHC during the period 2016-2021, as illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of
India and also contrary to G.O.Rt.No.301, dated
20.06.2020 and G.O.Rt.No.276, dated 09.05.2025.
The petitioners admittedly are working as Lab
Technicians on outsourcing basis under the National
Health Mission (NHM) scheme. Their span of service also
includes eUPHC for the period 2016 to 2021 with NHM
funds. He further reiterates that the said scheme
introduced to provide better health care services to urban
slum populations.
While things stood thus, the 4th respondent issued
notification No.01/PHC/2025, inviting applications for
2
recruitment to the post of Lab Technicians and other
various posts in health institutions. This notification is also
for outsourcing basis.
As per the conditions stipulated therein, including
the last date for submission of application were
categorically satisfied by the petitioners and there is no
remorse by the respondents on that count. After the
stipulation of those conditions, provisional merit list was
nomenclatured as “District Medical and Health Officer,
Krishna, Machilipatnam, Lab Technician Grade-II PHC
Recruitment 01/2025 on Contract Basis”. This list was
drawn after receiving the objections by the candidates
and the petitioners have satisfied the Court that in
pursuance of calling for objections, the petitioners have
also submitted their objections indicating their grievances.
Mr.Sriman, learned counsel, would contend that in
the list though the petitioners’ names are reflected under
the column “reply to objections” and drawn the attention of
this Court that the reply to objections indicates that there
is no categorical application of mind and also throws light
that the respondents acted in a discriminative manner in a
choosy method.
Mr.Sriman, learned counsel drew the attention to
substantiate his contention regarding discrimination and
not following the procedure of awarding service weightage
marks as indicated in the instructions and also contrary to
the other districts which followed and awarded the service
weightage marks.
Mr.Sriman, learned counsel, would state that a
classic example of discrimination and the respondents,
3
being the State, should adopt uniform process and
method in allotting the service weightage marks and
cannot take different stands at different levels in different
districts as per their choices.
In respect of the 1st petitioner, he points out that the
petitioner’s name is found at Serial No.102 and in the
objections column, it is stated that “Service Weightage not
considered for the period 10.04.2017 to 31.08.2021, as
per G.O.Ms.No.301, HM & FW (B2) Department, dt.
20.06.2020”. In respect of the 2nd petitioner, he points out
that the petitioner’s name is found at Serial No.219,
wherein it is stated that “Considered Urban Service only
and Awarded 7 marks and eUPHC Service not
considered as per G.O.Ms.No.301, HM & FW (B2)
Department, dt. 20.06.2020”. In respect of 3rd petitioner,
he points out that the petitioner’s name is found at Serial
No.189, wherein it is stated that “Considered. Service
weightage was given to the services selection of
appointment by the DSC and awarded 7 marks”. In
respect of the 4th petitioner, he points out that the
petitioner’s name is found at Serial No.276, wherein it is
stated that “considered”. In respect of the 5th petitioner, he
points out that the petitioner’s name is found at Serial
No.209, wherein it is stated that “Appolo service from
01.11.2016 to 31.08.2021 not considered as per
G.O.Ms.No.301, HM & FW (B2) Department, dt.
20.06.2020”.
Mr.Sriman, learned counsel further stated that the
1st petitioner also, has applied for the said post even in
Palnadu District and his objections were considered and
4
the modification orders were issued, which is clearly
reflected in the final merit list for the post of Lab
Technician vide Notification No.01/2026, dated
25.03.2026.
The other petitioners also submitted their objections
and the same were not considered.
This Court is not going into the merits of the case,
but prima facie satisfied that the respondents, being the
departments under the control of the State, should follow
the instructions in uniformity and cannot deviate from the
said instructions according to their choices. More so, this
Court finds force in the contention of Mr.Sriman, learned
counsel that the rejection or non-consideration, is without
any reasons and the petitioners are unable to know as to
why their objections were not considered when
G.O.Rt.No.301, dated 20.06.2020 does not mention about
the particular period. Even otherwise, the case of the 1st
petitioner was considered in the other district, Palnadu
District, which amply fortifies that there is absolute
illegality and infirmity in the said decision taken by the
respondents.
When the petitioners approach the Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India under Judicial
Review, this Court will only see the process of decision
making and not the decision. In the present case, since
there is prima facie case and balance of convenience is in
favour of the petitioners. The judgment of the
Constitutional Bench (nine judges) of the Hon’ble
5
Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai and others vs. Union of
India and others1, addresses the above ratio, which is no
more res integra.
“215. Judicial review is a basic feature of the
Constitution. This Court/High Courts have constitutional
duty and responsibility to exercise judicial review as centinal
quevive. Judicial review is not concerned with the merits of
the decision, but with the manner in which the decision was
taken.”
Hence, there shall be a direction to the respondents
to re-examine the cases of the petitioners strictly in
accordance with the instructions issued by the
Government from time to time within a period of one week
from today. Till then, five posts pursuant to the Lab
Technicians notified through the Notification
No.01/PHC/2025, shall be kept vacant.
List the matter after Summer Vacation, 2026.
______
GTK,J
BMS
1
(1994) 3 SCC 1
