HC’s shock treatment to Centre on docs allotment

to the provisions of the AP Reorganisation Act 2014 and also the Constitution wherein any discrimination based on nativity alone was illegal.

They submitted that as per the Reorganisation Act, the only method by which any person could be allotted was by way of the option exercised by him or her.

They contended that the provision of the Act 2014 prevails over the Article 371 D of the Constitution and also the Presidential Order and the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon is a state-wide post and not a zonal one.

Counsels told the court that final allotment order which was based purely on nativity and without any consideration of the option of the petitioners for TS, which amounts to violation of their fundamental rights.

They brought to the notice of the court that the court in earlier case directed the Centre not to make any final allotment.

Counsel for Telangana opposed the petitions, stating that what was done earlier was at the time of tentative allotment and now that the final allotment order was issued and since the petitioners were relieved no order could be passed.

Reacting to the submissions, the ACJ observed that in the earlier matter, substantial questions of law were raised and the Centre directed not to make any final allotment. Just because the final allotment were made and persons were relieved could not be countenanced, the ACJ said.