Dismissed

K.Mahender, v. The South Central Zonal Office

Telangana HC18 Aug 2005WP/240/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed regarding the exclusion of petitioners from an interview for Class-IV posts because they were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The writ petition was declared infructuous as an interim order had already permitted the petitioners to appear for the interview.

What did the court decide?

writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no costs.

K.Mahender, Vs The South Central Zonal Office — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 240 of 2001

¶7

Between:

¶8

1. K.Mahender, S/o K.Yadaiah 2. B.Narsing Rao, S/o B.Shankar 3. T.Sreenivasu, S/o T.Satyanarayana 4. A.Suri Babu S/op Markendeyulu 5. B. Praveen Kumar, S/o Narayana, 6. E.Sreenivasa Rao, S/o Venkataiah, 7. S.Prashanth Kumar, S/o Prakash Rao, 8. Mohd. Sadique Baba S/o Md. Hussain, 9 K.Venkatesh, S/o Late Shankaraiah

¶9

..... PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

1.The South Central Zonal Office, Rep. by its Zonal Manager. The Life Insurance Corporation of India Saifabad,] Hyderavad. 2.The Divisional Office, Rep. byits Senior Divisional Manager, The Life Insurance Corporation of India Saifabad Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶13

For declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the test/interview to be held

¶14

on 11.01.2001 or thereafter for the post of Watchman/Class IV posts, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶15

While admitting the writ petition, this court passed an interim order that pending further orders, the petitioners shall be permitted to appear the interview scheduled to be held on 11.01.2001 or thereafter, for the post of Watchman/Class-IV posts without insisting that their names should be sponsored from the employment exchange and interview them along with the other candidates sponsored by the employment exchange if they are otherwise found suitable.

¶16

In pursuance of the directions given by this Court, the petitioners have appeared for the interview.

¶17

As the main relief sought for by the petitioners in the writ petition has already been served, no cause survives in this writ petition.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

¶19

(K.C. BHANU, J)

¶20

Date: 18.08.2005

¶21

Ksn

K.Mahender, v. The South Central Zonal Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mahender, v. The South Central Zonal Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Sahib Baksh, Vs The Commissioner and Secretary

Union.Reg.No.A-1409, Vs The Government of India

G. Sugunarao Vs The Goveernment of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

P. Bapu Reddy, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

P. Srinivas, Vs The Chief Managing Director

J.P.Meena Vs Union of India