Allowed

S. Jayamma v. The Joint Executive Officer

Telangana HC14 Jul 2006WP/14443/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus declaring the respondent's failure to issue call letters illegal as they missed the notification due to district residence. The court directed the respondent to receive and consider the petitioners' applications alongside others, provided they qualify.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to receive petitioners' applications for Tonsurers post and consider their cases if they qualify and comply with conditions.

S. Jayamma Vs The Joint Executive Officer — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶3

Writ Petition No.14443 of 2006

¶4

Dated: July 14, 2006

¶5

Between:

¶6

S. Jayamma, W/o. V. Subba Rayudu, aged about 30 years, R/o. H. No.1/87, Patha Kadapa (Village and Post) Kadapa District, and another.

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

And

¶9

The Joint Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam, Thirupathi, Chittoor District.

¶10

… Respondent

¶11

Order:

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not issuing call letters to the petitioners for selection to the post of piece rate Tonsurers to be held on 18-072006 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶14

3. The case of the petitioners, who are residents of Cuddapah district, is that on 29-04-2006, the respondent has notified 20 vacancies of piece-rate Tonsurers and affixed the notifications in its premises. It is stated that though the petitioners registered their names in the District Employment Exchange, their names have not been sponsored. Hence, they filed applications before the respondent on 08-07-2006 to consider their case and issue call letters. Their grievance is that their cases are not being considered, but the claims of the persons whose names were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange and the persons who responded to the notification dated

¶15

29-04-2006, issued locally, are being considered. It is alleged that they being residents of Cuddapah District are not aware of the notification issued by the respondent in Chittoor District Edition.

¶16

4. It is to be seen that the petitioners are residents of Cuddapah district and the notification issued by the respondent is confined only to Chittoor District, since the notification was issued in the newspaper of Chittor District Edition. Hence, the petitioners could not respond to the notification issued by the respondent, nor their names were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange.

¶17

5. In the circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to receive the applications of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Tonsurers, and consider their case along with the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange and those who have responded to the notification issued locally. However, it is made clear that the cases of the petitioners shall be considered if they qualify and comply all other requisite conditions.

¶18

6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No

¶19

order as to costs.

¶20

__________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY.

¶21

July 14, 2006 Note: Furnish copy tomorrow B/o MRR

S. Jayamma v. The Joint Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Jayamma v. The Joint Executive Officer

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

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

Bayye Abraham Vs The General Manager, South Central Railway

P.Nagi Reddy Vs The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams

Telikepalli Hemanth Rama Kumar, Vs Acharya Nagarjuna University

Mirza Jahangir Beg, Vs The Government of Ap

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