Dismissed

M.Murali Babu, v. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Mar 2022WP/29348/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging a consequential order relievinating the petitioner. The court held that since the challenge was on identical grounds to a pending writ petition, the present petition would not be entertained, leaving the matter for the pending suit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner advised to seek remedy in pending writ petition No. 18140 of 2021.

M.Murali Babu, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Public… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI WRIT PETITION No. 29348 of 2021

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

Heard Sri P. Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aswat Narayan, learned GP for Services – I for respondents.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶5

“...to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the revised selection list prepared by the A.P.P.S.C, dated 10-5-2018 pursuant to Notification No. 10/99 in so far as reallotting the petitioner from the post of Sub Registrar GradeII in Zone III to Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in Zone III is concerned and the consequential instructions issued by the 1^st respondent in Memo No. 1112077/Ser. A/2020, dated 4-8-2021 to relieve the candidates pursuant to selection list dated 10-5-2018 and the consequential Proc. No. A1/1079/2017, dated 23-8-2021 issued by the 5^th respondent relieving the petitioner from his present post without any appointment orders as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being contrary to the principle laid down by the Apex Court and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Sub Registrar Grade-II in his present post with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass such order or orders...”

¶6

It is admitted to the petitioner’s counsel that for the aforesaid prayers, except with respect to consequential Proc.No.A1/1079/2017, dated 23.08.2021, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 18140 of 2021, which is pending before this Court, in which this Court granted the interim order on 26.08.2021.

¶7

The order dated 23.08.2021 challenged in this petition is only a consequential order to the Order dated 04.08.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware about the impugned consequential order dated 23.08.2021 at the time of filing of writ petition No.18140 of 2021 or at the time the interim order was passed on 26.08.2021, and came to know about it when

¶9

¶10

RNT, J WP. No. 29348 of 2021

¶11

in spite of the interim order dated 26.08.2021, the petitioner was not allowed to any posting pursuant to the order dated 23.08.2021. Learned Govt.Pleader for Services – I submits that petitioner was relived prior to passing of the interim order, but this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court in W.P.No. 18140 of 2021.

¶12

Be that as it may, the Court is not entering into that aspect of the matter.

¶13

Learned GP for Services – I points out that the petitioner has filed I.A.No. 2 of 2021 in W.P. No. 18140 of 2021 for modification of the interim order dated 26.08.2021 which is admitted to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

On a specific query of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge to the consequential order dated 23.08.2021 is on the same grounds as to the main order dated 04.08.2021 in W.P.No. 18140 of 2021, and there is no independent ground of challenge.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition leaving it open to the petitioner to seek remedy in the pending writ petition No. 18140 of 2021, if so advised as per law.

¶16

The writ petition is dismissed, however, with the aforesaid observations.

¶17

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶18

_______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J

¶19

Date: 11.03.2022

M.Murali Babu, v. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murali Babu, v. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

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

M. Gangadhar Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kagolanu Venkateswara Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Suriya Begam Vs the Dist Medical and Health Officer

Ranga Rajasekhar Vs The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

L.Chandra Mohan, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

B. Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Unit Run Canteen National Cadet Corps