Partly allowed

Kokkiligadda Rajeev Singh v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2019WP/20432/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging refusal of appointment as Ward Welfare Secretary due to lack of Arts/Humanities graduation. Court allowed petition in part, granting liberty to file fresh representation regarding Commerce degrees, while dismissing petition for Technology degree holders.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; liberty granted to file fresh representation for prominence to consider Commerce degree cases within three weeks; petition dismissed for Technology degree holders.

Kokkiligadda Rajeev Singh Vs The state of… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20432 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The action of respondents, in refusing to appoint the petitioners in the post of Ward Welfare and Development Secretary (Grade-II) on the ground that they did not possess graduation in Arts and Humanities, pursuant to notification No.06/2019 dated 26.07.2019 of respondent No.3, is questioned in the Writ Petition as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.217 dated 20.07.2019 for constitution of Ward Secretariats. Paragraph (h) thereof prescribes requisite qualification for the post of the Ward Secretaries; and insofar as Ward Welfare and Development Secretary is concerned, the educational qualification prescribed is graduation in Social work/ Sociology/Anthropology. Respondent issued notification No.06/2019 dated 26.07.2019 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Ward Welfare and Development Secretary (Grade-II). Pursuant to the notification, petitioners appeared for examination held on 08.09.2019 and secured good marks and placed in merit list. On verification, the respondent – authorities took an objection that petitioner Nos.1 to 5 possessed Degree in Bachelor of Commerce and petitioner Nos.6 and 7 possessed Bachelor of Technology, which do not come under Bachelor of Arts. The job chart, issued by the respondents, indicates

¶6

that the petitioners would be appropriately placed to discharge those functions in view of their education in degrees, and the selected candidates would be given two months training; and in spite of which, respondents are not considering the candidature of the petitioners.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, as petitioner Nos.1 to 5 possessed Degree in Bachelor of Commerce which is one of Arts Bachelor degree, their cases be considered as also with petitioner Nos.6 and 7, who possessed Bachelor of Technology.

¶8

Learned Government Pleader for Services-II submits that, if the petitioners file a fresh representation before respondent Nos.3 to 7, their cases would be considered, in accordance with the notification, if they are eligible.

¶9

In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are given liberty to file a fresh representation before respondent Nos.3 to 7/appropriate authority seeking consideration of their cases and, if such a representation is filed, respondent Nos.3 to 7/appropriate authority is directed to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

In so far as petitioner Nos.6 and 7 are concerned, the Writ Petition is dismissed as they possessed Bachelor of Technology, an altogether a different qualification, and does not come under Arts and Humanities.

¶11

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶13

Date:17.12.2019 usd

Kokkiligadda Rajeev Singh v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kokkiligadda Rajeev Singh v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alanka Varalaxmi and another Vs the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corp and 3 Others

M. Rama Rao, Vs The Director

M.D. Amrutha Raj, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Ramakrishna Rao, Vs The A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd.

P Raghuram Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

H Govindu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh