Allowed

Ch. Sathi Babu S/o Rama Rao v. Government of a.P., rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC18 Nov 2008WP/2562/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, working as Messengers in a cooperative bank, challenged the filling of Category-V vacancies exclusively through Paid Secretaries. The court issued directions for the respondent to adhere to the prescribed recruitment ratio.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the respondent to allocate available vacancies to different categories as per G.O.Ms.No.338 dated 12.12.2007 and proceed with respective candidates of all three categories.

Ch. Sathi Babu S/o Rama Rao Vs Government… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 2562 OF 2008

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The petitioners are working as Messengers, in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Kakinada, the 3^rd respondent herein. Steps were initiated, vide proceedings dated 22.1.2008, to fill up the vacancies in Category-V. The petitioners state that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.338, dated 12.12.2007, prescribing the ratio of 5:4:1, among the direct recruitees, Paid Secretaries and in-service candidates, such as the petitioners, in the context of filing up the posts in Category-V, and instead of maintaining the said ratio in making appointments, the 3^rd respondent is proceeding to fill the vacancies, only through Paid Secretaries. The action of the respondents is challenged in this writ petition.

¶5

The 3^rd respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is not disputed that steps were taken to fill the vacancies in Category-V, only by way of promotion to the Paid Secretaries. It is also stated that they do not have any objection, if necessary directions are issued to consider the case of the petitioners, against the vacancies earmarked for them.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, and learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶7

It is not in dispute that the 3^rd respondent is proceeding to fill the vacancies in Category-V. The Government prescribed three methods of appointment and stipulated the ratio also. The 3^rd respondent cannot pick up one such category and proceed to fill the vacancies. They are under obligation to earmark the available

¶8

vacancies to the respective categories and to fill the same, in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

¶9

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the 3^rd respondent shall allocate the available vacancies to the different categories, as provided for under G.O.Ms.No.338, dated 12.12.2007, and proceed to fill the same with respective candidates of all the three categories, as per the prescribed ratio. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

________________ 19^th June 2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/0) PAN

Ch. Sathi Babu S/o Rama Rao v. Government of a.P., rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Sathi Babu S/o Rama Rao v. Government of a.P., rep by its Principal 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

Gunduboyina Raghuvulu, Vs The District Collector

K.Venkata Raju Vs The District Level Sand Committee, represented by its

K.Hanumantha Rao, Vs The District Cooperatvie Officer, Machilipatnam

Shaikh Chand Basha, Vs Mohammed Siddique

Sri B.Sudershan Reddy, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board

Sri Chirala Veera Raghava Reddy Vs The Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh