Allowed

Social Educational and women Society, Reg.No.792/99 v. The Commissioner, Family Welfare Department

Telangana HC17 Jul 2006WP/14308/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner educational society challenged rejection of candidate applications by respondents for Multipurpose Health Workers exam. Court directed respondents to accept the list but scrutinize individual eligibility and issue hall tickets to approved candidates only.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to accept the candidate list, scrutinize individual eligibility, and issue hall tickets to approved candidates only.

Social Educational and women Society, Reg.No.792/99… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.14308 of 2006

¶3

Dated: July 17, 2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

Social Educational & Women Society, Reg.No.792/99, rep. by its Secretary-cum-Correspondent K. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy, aged 40 years, R/o. Katta Subba Rao Street, Eluru, W.G. District.

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Commissioner, Family Welfare Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad, and another.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Order:

¶11

This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not accepting the applications of the candidates who underwent training in the Multipurpose Health Workers (F) Training Course, even though they were submitted as per the conditions mentioned in the notification dated 05-06-2006, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶12

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

3. The case of the petitioner, an educational society, which is running Multipurpose Health Workers (F) Training Course, is that the first respondent, the Commissioner, Family Welfare Department, issued notification dated 05-06-2006 for conducting examinations for the said course and the same was published in the newspaper. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner is said to have submitted filled in applications of the candidates trained in its institute, by enclosing the requisite fee, to the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents refused to receive the same without assigning any valid reason.

¶14

4. The matter has come up on 13-07-2006 and it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions.

¶15

5. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner institution has forwarded the names of the candidates who have not at all been approved for undergoing such training course. It is stated that though the names of the majority of the candidates have been approved to undergo training, the petitioner institution has also included some names of the candidates who have not at all been approved to undergo such training; hence the list submitted by the petitioner has not been accepted.

¶16

6. If that be the case, the respondents could have rejected the names of such of the candidates who are not eligible to write the examinations on the ground that there is no approval for them to undergo training. But, it was not open for the respondents to reject

¶17

the entire list submitted by the petitioner institution, depriving the eligible candidates of writing the examination. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to accept the list of candidates forwarded by the petitioner pursuant to the notification dated 05-06-2006 for conducting examinations for the aforesaid course. However, it is open for the respondents to scrutinize the eligibility of the candidates from out of the list. In case the respondents are of the view that some of the candidates have not been approved to undergo training, and they do not fulfill the conditions stipulated for writing the examination, they may refuse to allow them to write the examination. At the same time, the respondents shall issue hall tickets to the candidates whose names have been approved to undergo training and allow them to write examination as per the notification dated 05-06-2006.

¶18

7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

__________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY.

¶20

July 17, 2006 MRR

Social Educational and women Society, Reg.No.792/99 v. The Commissioner, Family Welfare Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Social Educational and women Society, Reg.No.792/99 v. The Commissioner, Family Welfare Department

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

Telikepalli Hemanth Rama Kumar, Vs Acharya Nagarjuna University

S. Jayamma Vs The Joint Executive Officer

Mirza Quadir Baig, Vs The Officer-in-Charge, Records

Mirza Jahangir Beg, Vs The Government of Ap

Dr. C. Manjula Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by its Secretary

Akhil Singhal, Vs The Registrar, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences