B.Venkateswarlu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Venkateswarlu, S/o Rangaiah, aged 36 years, Occ: Home Guard No. 370, Ongole Unit, R/o. H.No. 31-53-854, 60 feet road, Satyanarayanapuram, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶13

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur- 522660.

¶14

The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District at Ongole, Andhra

¶15

Pradesh.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.1 to consider petitioner representation dated 11-06-2013 for appointment ini; any Class-IV category post by duly declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in not considering

¶18

his representation dated 11-06-2013 for appointment in any Class-IV category post as illegal and unjustified.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2ni«

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to consider the Petitioners representation dated 11-06-2013 for appointment in any Class-IV category post.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶22

The Court made the following order:

¶23

APHC010958982018

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶25

AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3396]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶31

WRIT PETITION No. 46313/2018

¶32

Between:

¶33

1.B.VENKATESWARLU, S/0 RANGAIAH, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC.HOME GUARD NO. 370, ONGOLE UNIT, R/O.H.NO.31-53854, 60 FEET ROAD, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶37

2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, GUNTUR- 522660.

¶38

3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶39

4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶41

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or^{directionmore} in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent^No.1 to consider petitioner representation dated 11-6-2013 for appointment in any Class-IV category post by duly declaring the action of the Respondent^No.1 in not considering his representation dated 11-6-2013 for appointment in any Class-IV category post by duly declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in not considering his representation dated 11-6-2013 for appointment in any Class-IV category post as illegal and unjustified and pass

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶43

1.SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI

¶44

2

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I (AP)

¶46

The Court made the following:

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶49

.... to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.l to consider petitioner representation dated 11-6-2013 for appointment in any Class-IV category post by duly declaring the action of the Respondent^No.l in not considering his representation dated 11-6-2013 for appointment in any Class-IV category post by duly declaring the action of the Respondent No.l in not considering his representation dated 11-6-2013 for appointment in any Class-IV category post as illegal and unjustified and pass ..."

¶50

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents. Perused the material on record.

¶51

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Petitioner joined in respondent-department as Home Guard in the year 2003 and while working as such, he applied and selected to the post of Police Constable (Civil) in Prakasam District in the year 2009. Meanwhile, he met with an accident in February, 2010, due to which his right fore-foot was amputated and in that connection, a case in Crime No. 17 of 2010 of Podili Police Station was registered^{fortheoffenceunder} Section 337 IPC. Learned counsel would submit that his candidature to the post of Police Constable was rejected since medically unfit.^{Learnedcounselwould} further submit that Petitioner has submitted a representation to respondent No.2

¶52

to consider his candidature to any non-uniform service in the department, in turn, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No.l dated 17.03.2012 requesting to consider Petitioner's case as a special case and provide employment as Class-IV employee in the Department and his representation is not yet considered by respondent authorities. Learned counsel would submit that in similar circumstances, respondent authorities have considered the case of Sri K.Jaya Raju, who also worked as Home Guard in the department, appointed him as Junior Assistant and posted at Nellore under orthopedically Handicapped (OH) category. Learned counsel would further submit that the representation of the Petitioner which was forwarded to the Government by respondent No.2 with positive recommendation is not yet considered despite the interim order passed by this Court on 20.12.2018 in lA No.l of 2018 directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 11.06.2013 within a period of six weeks. Learned counsel finally prayed for a direction to respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within the time frame.

¶53

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, would submit that respondent authorities have not received any interim orders passed by this Court. But, Petitioner has been continued as Home Guard in the Department. It is further submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the submission that despite several reminders issued by respondent No.2

¶54

4

¶55

to Government, Petitioner's representation is not yet considered. In that view, it is apposite to direct the respondent No.l to consider the recommendation made by respondent No.2 dated 17.03.2012 and take appropriate^{decisionoverthe} matter according to the governing rules and law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶56