Allowed

L.A.S.S. Prasad S/o Bhagavanulu v. The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate

Telangana HC27 Oct 2004WP/19657/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Junior Assistant approached the High Court via Writ Petition seeking regularization in an aided post after two proposals for the same remained pending with the Commissioner. Directing the Commissioner to pass orders on the proposals within two months, the Court disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the regularization proposals within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

L.A.S.S. Prasad S/o Bhagavanulu Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 19657 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

L.A.S.S.Prasad, S /o.Bhagavanulu, Aged about 35 years, Junior Assistant, Satavahana College,

¶9

Seetarampuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶10

..... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1. The Commissioner & Director of Collegiate Education, A.P.,

¶13

Hyderabad.

¶14

2. The Correspondent, Satavahana College, Seetarampuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate order or direction or a writ more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to absorb the Petitioner herein in the aided vacant post by regularizing the petitioner services as Junior Assistant in the Satavahana College, Vijayawada, after declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein is illegal, arbitrary and void and to pass such other order or orders as the

¶17

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GADEVENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

ORAL ORDER:

¶20

The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Junior Assistant in the 2^nd respondent-Satavahana College, Vijayawada on 27-02-1998 in an aided vacancy caused on account of retirement of Junior Assistant. The petitioner further contended that 2^nd respondent sent a proposal to the 1^st respondent for regularization of the services of the petitioner on 18-03-2001 and 21-08-2003. But, the first respondent did not pass any orders on those proposals. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court seeking a direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposals made by the 2^nd respondent.

¶21

In the light of the circumstances explained by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the letters of the 2^nd respondent dated 18-032001 and 21-08-2003 regarding the regularization of the services of the petitioner in an aided post as per rules in force, within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and communicate the same to the 2^nd respondent.

¶22

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶23

____________________ Dr.G.YETHIRAJULU, J.

¶24

Dated: 27^th October, 2004.

¶25

*TSNR

¶26

¶27

1. The Commissioner & Director of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad.

¶28

2. The Correspondent, Satavahana College, Seetarampuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶29

3. 2 CCs to the Government Pleader for Education, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (O.U.T)

¶30

4. 2 CD copies.

L.A.S.S. Prasad S/o Bhagavanulu v. The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.A.S.S. Prasad S/o Bhagavanulu v. The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate

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

Chopparapu Venkateswarulu Vs The Principle Secretary Endowments Department

Smt.K.Varalaxmi Vs The District Educational Officer

Dr. K. Jaya Shankar, Vs The Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages

V.T. Satya Sridhar, Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

B. Srinivasa Rao S/o Venkateswarlu Vs Commissioner, Women and child welfare Department

M/s. Mvs Brick Works, Vs The Senior Branch Manager