Dismissed

Union of India v. Vykuntam Lakshmunaidu

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Oct 2020WP/18113/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had allowed a respondent's candidature despite a technical defect where his application signature was not in Hindi or English, ruling that equity prevented rejection at that stage.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed with no costs.

Union of India Vs Vykuntam Lakshmunaidu — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR

¶2

AND

¶3

HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.18113 OF 2020

¶5

(Proceedings taken up through video conferencing)

¶6

ORDER : ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar)

¶7

Heard Sri D.S.N.V.Prasad Babu, learned counsel, who has entered appearance on instructions of Smt.Y.Kamala Rani, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶8

The first petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, is none else but Union of India, represented by General Manager, East Coast Railway. The petitioners have invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the constitution of India, against an order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. By order, dated 21.01.2020, an application filed by sole respondent herein, which was registered as Original Application No.020/00736/2018, was allowed.

¶9

On perusal of the order, dated 21.01.2020, which has been placed on record as Ex.P-1, it is evident that the respondent had qualified in the examination, which was conducted by the Railway Recruitment Cell against a post of Group-D Helper. It is further evident that the Tribunal, initially, had passed an interim order for keeping one post unfilled reserved pursuant to employment notice dated 31.07.2012. The respondent applied, appeared in selection test and qualified. However, subsequently, on scrutiny, his application was rejected on the ground that the application filed by the respondent was not in consonance with the conditions prescribed in the employment notice, which was issued in the year 2012. Main reason for rejection of the candidature of the respondent was that his application was contrary to the condition mentioned in clause 12 (xii) i.e.,

¶10

RK,J & JUD,J W.P. No.18113/2020

¶11

¶12

‘ application with signatures that are not in the running script and not in Hindi or English ’. A plea was taken that the signature was not either in Hindi or English and this was the reason for restraining the respondent of the Writ Petition from the employment and rejection of his candidature.

¶13

The learned Tribunal, by the impugned order, negated the rejection order passed by the writ petitioners and as such the order impugned has been assailed before this Court.

¶14

On going through the impugned order, prima-facie , we do not find any apparent error warranting interference. On equity also the Court is of the opinion that once the respondent, who after filing application, which was not signed either in English or Hindi, was allowed to participate in selection process, and selected; at latter stage, simply, on the ground of non-signature of application either in Hindi or English, there was no reason for rejection of his candidature. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶15

The Writ Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. No costs.

¶16

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

________________________ RAKESH KUMAR, J

¶18

________________________ J.UMA DEVI, J

¶19

Date: 09-10-2020. Dsh

Union of India v. Vykuntam Lakshmunaidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Vykuntam Lakshmunaidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Ap Vs K G Madhav

M.Padma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kethireddy Praveen Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Sri Venkateswara Fertilizers, Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I

M/s N R Broilers, Vs The Canara Bank(Syndicate Bank)

B. Venkatraya Chetty, Vs The District Educational Officer