Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has explained that the options provided by App App and Telangana employees during the division of staff among twin countries do not give them their rights and reject the petition submitted by Dr.
Munagala Jyothi, a civilian assistant surgeon who works at Guntur AP Regency looks for a shift to Telangana service.
He was allocated for AP when the staff division even though his choice worked with Telangana.
He also quoted the land of the couple to support his claim because of his husband, another civil surgeon, worked in Hyderabad.
A justice bench Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice a Rajasheker Reddy heard his request, reading records, and said that the division carried out in harmony with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee who had experts with administration and refused to interfere in the process because the applicant failed to make a valid case call for court intervention.
When the committee of the experts and the authorities of the two countries gave a lot of time to employees to submit their objections to tentative allocations, the applicant did not cause objections at that time, said Bench.
The committee and authorities examined the school education certificate, etc.
and came to the conclusion that he was a native of the AP and allocated it to AP services.
The Committee suggests successor countries correlate local candidates / births of employees with options for allocations along with employee seniority and include the same in the guidelines.
This is related to the note that the term ‘local candidate’ found a place in the two successors under employee service rules, Bench said.
Another important aspect of this case is that the tentative allocation list is issued on July 14, 2016, giving 14 days to improve objections.
However, the applicant did not submit objections to tentative allocations.
The Committee has considered the representation of other employees and finally after considering all objections and representations have recommended the final allocation of the employee list.
“Now we cannot interfere in this problem because the applicant cites personal difficulties that cannot be taken as a basis at this stage,” Bench said.