Disposed

Md. Riaz Ahmmad, v. The Secretary

Telangana HC18 Jul 2006WP/14673/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a lecturer on contract, challenged a society's notification inviting fresh contract applications. The court held contractees are on par with outsiders and cannot assail the notification's validity, but their past service must be considered if they apply.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to apply pursuant to notification dated 04-05-2006; his claim shall be considered keeping in mind his past service and record. No order as to costs.

Md. Riaz Ahmmad, Vs The Secretary — 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.14673 of 2006

¶4

Dated: July 18, 2006

¶5

Between:

¶6

Md. Riaz Ahammad, S/o. Ismail, aged 29 years, R/o.H.No.15-7-36, Kummari Bazar, Old Guntur, Guntur District.

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

The Secretary, A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society (Regd.), Gagan Vihar, 3^rd Floor, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001, and another.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

Order:

¶12

The petitioner, who worked as Lecturer in Mathematics in one of the colleges of the respondent society, filed this writ petition questioning the employment notification dated 04-05-2006 issued by the first respondent-society inviting applications to fill up the vacancies of lecturers.

¶13

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijaya Bhaskar Moola, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Lecturer on contract basis in the year 2001 and is being continued as such. His grievance is that when he was appointed and working as lecturer on contract basis, there is no valid reason for issuing the impugned notification inviting applications again for making appointments on contract basis.

¶15

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a specified period. Once the petitioner serves for the contracted period, he stands on similar footing as that of outsiders who apply pursuant to notification dated 04-05-2006. Merely because he has served on contract basis for some period, he cannot assail the validity of the notification inviting applications to fill up vacancies. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notification. However, if the petitioner applies pursuant to notification dated

¶16

04-05-2006, his claim shall be considered keeping in mind his past service and record.

¶17

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

¶18

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY.

¶19

July 18, 2006 MRR

Md. Riaz Ahmmad, v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Riaz Ahmmad, v. The Secretary

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 Jahangir Beg, Vs The Government of Ap

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

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

M. Ramesh Vs Govt. of A.P.

S. Ravi Sankar Vs Sri Venkateswara University

Mohd. Ziauddin Sheeraz Vs N.T.R. University of Health Sciences