Allowed

Pumendu Kumar Sharma v. Office of the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Hyderabad

Telangana HC7 Jul 2006WP/13569/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging inaction by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer regarding a CAP certificate, the court directed the officer to consider the petitioner's representation and issue the necessary certificate with corrected particulars.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 15.6.2006 and issue the necessary certificate within one week.

Pumendu Kumar Sharma Vs Office of the Zilla… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 13569 OF 2006

¶3

Dated 7th July, 2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

P.K.Sharma … Petitioner And

¶6

Office of the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Hyderabad District, Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad, represented by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer and another.

¶7

…Respondents.

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the first respondent in not issuing the Children of Armed Forces Personnel (CAP) Certificate to enable the 2^nd respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner under the said quota for admission into medical stream.

¶10

The father of the petitioner served in Air Force and was discharged from service on 1.9.1999 when he was working at Air Force Station, Hakimpet, Secunderabad. The petitioner was admitted to IX Class in Kendriya Vidyalaya and studied up to XII Class i.e. for four academic years, in the said school.

¶11

He appeared for EAMCET examination earlier also and claimed reservation in the quota reserved for the Children of Armed Forces Personnel category. At that point of time, on his application, the first respondent had issued proforma certificate, which was prescribed to the children of ex-servicemen, Armed Forces, BSR and CRPF. However, the said certificate was issued showing his address to be that of Bihar. It is the case of the petitioner that the said entries were not correctly made and basing on the said certificate issued earlier, his claim for consideration under reserved quota was not considered.

¶12

Subsequently, the petitioner got corrected the entries with regard to residential address at the time of retirement of his father, by the concerned authority and made an application to the first respondent. It is stated that the last representation was made on 15.6.2006. His grievance is that no written orders have been passed, but orally it is stated to be informed that the first respondent

¶13

has rejected.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent that unless the first respondent issues necessary certificate, he is not entitled to claim any vacancy in the medical stream in the quota reserved for Children of Armed Forces Personnel. If any modifications are made in the discharge certificate issued to the father of the petitioner, it is for the first respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶15

Inasmuch as the first respondent has not taken any action on the subsequent application made by the petitioner and the scheduled date for counselling for admission into medical courses is fast-approaching, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.6.2006 and issue necessary certificate taking into account the corrected particulars mentioned in the discharge certificate issued in the name of the father of petitioner. The same shall be done within a period of one week from today. No costs.

¶16

______________________ 7.7.2006 (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) VR Note: Issue cc by 10.7.2006. (BO) VR

Pumendu Kumar Sharma v. Office of the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pumendu Kumar Sharma v. Office of the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Hyderabad

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

D.Satyanarayana, Vs The President/Appellate Authority Nalgonda District -

M/s. Ayyappa Traders, Vs The Joint Collector Cum Purchasing Committee

A.Krishnaswamy Dikshitulu Vs Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor

S. Achuta Ramaiah, Vs Sri Durga Malleswaraswamy Devastham

Vijaya Kumari, Vs The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

L. Vijaya Kumari Vs The CHief General Manager Telecom