Disposed

B.Gopala Bhagya Lakshmi v. The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2020WP/6034/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of the writ petition directed to respondents to take action to implement the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4155 of 2016 to appoint the petitioner as Junior Lecturer with effect from the date juniors were promoted within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent authorities to implement the order dated 13.02.2019 in O.A.No.4155 of 2016 and pass appropriate appointment orders within three months.

B.Gopala Bhagya Lakshmi Vs The Commissioner… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.6034 of 2020

¶5

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, is non-implementation of the order, dated 13.02.2019, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), in O.A.No.4155 of 2016.

¶8

The Tribunal, by way of the said order, disposed of the said Original Application. Operative portion of the said order, at paragraph Nos.6 and 7, reads as under:

¶9

“6. Hence, the VMA is dismissed. The interim orders, dated 09.11.2016, are made absolute and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Lecturer with effect from the date on which her juniors were promoted and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

⦁ The OA is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to allowing OA, the CA is closed”.

¶11

¶12

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, despite the said orders, respondents have not taken any action in the direction of implementing the orders. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no Writ Petition has been filed against the above said order and the said order has attained finality. If that being so, this Court does not find any justification on the part of the respondents in not taking action pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal referred to supra.

¶13

For the foregoing reasons, Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents herein to take action as per the order, dated 13.02.2019, in O.A.No.4155 of 2016, and to pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitioners, if any, shall stand closed.

¶15

A.V.SESHA SAI,J

¶16

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶17

05^th March, 2020. Tsy

¶18

B.Gopala Bhagya Lakshmi v. The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Gopala Bhagya Lakshmi v. The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate

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

Rajeswari Bojjagani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Krishna Murthy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Kananka Prasad Rao. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Sujith Kumar Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/s.Meghraj Moolchand and Sons Vs The Commisssioner of Income Tax-I

S.T.a.T., Hyd Vs M/S. Pratap Industries