Dismissed

Dr. Mohd. Abdul Bari, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC5 Sept 2005WP/11313/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order directing the respondent to consider the petitioner for a medical post by relaxing age qualifications. The High Court found no illegality in the Tribunal order, dismissed the petition, and directed the respondent to consider the petitioner per the statutory notification. No further specific relief was granted in this or

What did the court decide?

Nothing granted; liberty granted to file representation for consideration under notification conditions.

Dr. Mohd. Abdul Bari, Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.11313 OF 2005

¶5

Dt: 05.09.2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dr.Mohd.Abdul Bari S/o.M.A.Gani Occ: Civil Assistant Surgeon Primary Health Centre Manikonda, Koilkonda Mandal Mahaboobnagar District … PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENTS

¶10

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶11

AND

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.11313 OF 2005

¶14

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meena Kumari)

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner-applicant to quash the Order dated 04.04.2005 in O.A.No.1482 of 2005 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon as per Notification No.1/2005 dated 28.02.2005

¶16

without insisting on the age qualification as prescribed in para 3 of the said Notification by duly relaxing the age to the extent of service rendered by him as contract Medical Officer.

¶17

The said O.A. was filed by the petitioner-applicant seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his application for appointment to the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon in response to Notification No.1/25 dated 28.02.2005 without insisting on the age qualification as prescribed in para-3 of the Notification by duly relaxing the age to the extent of service rendered by him as Contract Medical Officer.

¶18

The Tribunal after going into the merits of the case, disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process without insisting on the age qualification, as per para-3 (iv) of the Notification No.1/2005, dated 28.02.2005, if he is otherwise eligible and suitable and within 45 years of age as on the prescribed date. The Tribunal further directed that in case, sufficient candidates who are within 40 years of age are not available, then only, the case of the petitioner can be considered if he has filed the application within the stipulated time. The Tribunal also made clear that the participation of the petitioner in the selection process is subject to the condition stipulated under para-3 (iv) of the Notification. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been preferred.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned Order.

¶20

We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the Order impugned. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate representation before the respondents in pursuance of the Notification dated 28.02.2005 for considering his case if sufficient number of candidates who have not crossed 40 years of age are not available since the Notification itself makes it clear that if sufficient number of candidates who have not crossed 40 years of age are not available, candidates up to 45 years of age will also be considered for recruitment. As and when such representation is made, the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with the Rules.

¶21

(T.MEENA KUMARI, J)

¶22

(P.LAKSHMANA REDDY, J)

¶23

Dt: 05.09.2005

¶24

bsv/lvl

Dr. Mohd. Abdul Bari, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Mohd. Abdul Bari, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Kadimsetty Suryanarayana, Vs The Secretary

S.Venkata Rao, Vs The Regional Deputy Director

S.Nageswara Rao, Vs The Govt of A.P

Meesala Muralidhar, Vs The government. of A.P.

Chakinala Satyanarayana, Vs The Special Commissioner and Director

D.Lingaiah and Others Vs Sect. Home Dept Hyd and Others