Libertatem Magazine

Andhra Pradesh High Court Says There Is No Need Of Interference in Orders of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Directs Petitioner To Reinstate Respondent With Back Wages

Contents of this Page


A Division judge bench consisting of Honorable Justice Joymalya Baghchi and Sri Justice M. Ganga Rao dismissed the Writ Petition no. 21123 of 2012. The Petitioner in this Writ Petition had challenged the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal setting aside the termination order against the applicant i.e. 1st respondent (M. Srinivasu). 


In this case, the 1st respondent (M. Srinivasu) is a person with special needs and has applied for the appointment under the disability quota. The selection committee after examining all the documents and the medical certificates certifying him as a hearing-impaired candidate with more than 40% hearing impairment in addition to physical disability of 50%, by order dated 08.10.2002 provisionally selected him. He joined on 02.11.2002 and then his appointment was regularized on 20.07.2004 in the cadre of a junior assistant. Then he was transferred to Kakinada and on 01.11.2004 he was permanently appointed in the services of the government of Andhra Pradesh. The 6th respondent-The Assistant Director, Disabled Welfare, launched a special drive to detect the fraudulent candidates who have secured the job based on bogus certificated and called them to submit themselves for re-examination. Respondent no. 1st (M. Sreenivasu) was terminated from the services based on the re-examination mentioned above. Respondent submitted before the court that he was suffering from a hearing disorder since 1978 and had been treated at various hospitals. He has a hearing impairment above 40% and also the physical disability is above 50%, as per the certificate issued by the district medical board. He prayed for the re-examination of the medical certificates which were incorrectly issued. The Tribunal after considering the plea quashed the termination order and directed the authorities to reinstate the respondent 1st (M. Sreenivasu) along with back wages and other increments. Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition before the court to set aside the said order of the tribunal.

Arguments Advanced

The 1st Respondent (M. Srinivasu) contented before the court that the hospital authorities demanded a bribe which he refused to give. The corrupt authorised person of the hospital had issued an incorrect certificate assessing his disability at 28% only and without any representation or hearing, he was terminated from the services. 

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted before the court that the 1st Respondent (M. Sreenivasu) had been appointed under the hearing-impaired quota on the bogus certificate. There was no bias against the 1st Respondent (M. Srinivasu) as the Appellate Medical Board found him suffering from hearing impairment at 28% and his service was terminated. 

Court’s Analysis

After considering the material on record, the 1st Respondent (M. Sreenivasu) was appointed as a permanent employee under the disability quota and at the time of selection, he had a hearing disability of 40% and a physical disability of 50%. There was no certificate to show that the said certificates are false or fabricated. When the accusation of false certificates was made the petitioner did not provide the Respondent 1st (M. Srinivasu) the appropriate opportunity to contend the accusation in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice were violated. On the other hand, the 1st Respondent (M. Srinivasu) had submitted the documents and the medical certificates showing he suffered from hearing impairment since 1978, but none of these was considered by the Petitioner while passing the termination order. 

Court’s Decision

The Court was of the opinion that the tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of termination and the said order does not need any interference. The petitioner is directed to implement the orders of the tribunal immediately and pay all the back wages and increments to the 1st respondent, within 8 weeks from the date failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. No orders as to cost and any application pending shall also stand closed. 

Click here to view the Judgement. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.



About the Author