Disposed

N Sunil Kumar Reddy v. Appsc

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Dec 2020WP/22937/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking appointment as Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector despite lower marks than selected candidates, the High Court directed the respondent to provide medical board reports. The petitioner was granted leave to prefer an appeal to an appellate medical board within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to receive copies of medical reports and granted liberty to prefer an appeal to the appellate medical board within two months.

N Sunil Kumar Reddy Vs Appsc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.22937 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider appointing as Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector in preference to persons who have secured less marks than the petitioner i.e. 285.52 marks and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the rejection of appointment to the petitioner as Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector is illegal, as the persons, who have secured less marks than the petitioner i.e. 285.52 marks were selected to the said post.

¶7

Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.147, Finance (HR.1.Plg.Policy) Department dated 06.08.2016., which provides an appeal against the decision of the Medical Board, and the petitioner intended to prefer an appeal on payment of necessary fee, requested to issue a direction to respondent No.1 to furnish copies of reports of medical board so as to enable him the petitioner to prefer an appeal as per G.O.Ms.No.147, Finance (HR.1.Plg.Policy) Department dated 06.08.2016.

¶8

In view of the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, respondent No.1 is directed to issue copies of reports of medical examination of petitioner, on payment of requisite fee, for selection as Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector in pursuance of the notification dated

¶9

MSM,J WP_22937_2020

¶10

31.12.2018, and the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal to refer him for medical examination to the appellate medical board, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from today.

¶11

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶12

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶13

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶14

28.12.2020

¶15

Note: Issue C.C. in three (3) days. B/o Ksp

N Sunil Kumar Reddy v. Appsc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Sunil Kumar Reddy v. Appsc

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

Obili Ravi Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Taken Up Vs T Madan Mohan Rao

Kannedhara Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ainaparthi Satyanandam Vs A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Manjunathan Enterprises Vs the State of Ap

G.KarnalaKumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh