petitioner seeks mandamus declaring the respondent's refusal to appoint him in a higher cadre arbitrary, despite his prior acceptance of compassionate appointment. Bench held acceptance waives review and vacancies were filled by promotions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No : 14966 of 2009
O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed)
The writ petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering his case for appointment in a suitable higher cadre in conformity with his educational qualifications and the service put up by him in the department as arbitrary and illegal.
The case of the petitioner is that his father Sri K.L. Krishna, who was working as a Process Attender in the 1st respondent institution, retired under medical invalidation grounds and consequently, on his representation being made on 17.04.2000, the 1st respondent appointed him as an Attender, through the order dated 30.07.2000, instead of appointing him in a suitable vacant post, as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 612 (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991. It is his further case that he made several representations, the latest being the one dated 25.10.2008, requesting the 1st respondent to appoint him in any suitable post, based on his educational qualifications. According to him, the posts, which were lying vacant at the time of his appointment, were filled by way of promotions from 18.09.2000 to 04.04.2001. Therefore, he filed the present Writ Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very purpose of issuing G.O.Ms. No. 612 is frustrated by not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment in any suitable post and the 1st
respondent ought to have taken into consideration his educational qualifications, while appointing him as an Attender.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that this Court in Writ Petition No. 22025 of 2008, while dealing with somewhat similar circumstances, dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the conduct of the petitioner therein in accepting and working as an Attender, on compassionate grounds, and thereafter, seeking the post of Junior Assistant would, in reality, amount to review of his compassionate appointment made in 1999 as Attender. According to her, the father of the petitioner retired as a Process Attender, and therefore, the petitioner was rightly appointed as an Attender, after considering his representation.
No doubt, in the present case, the eligibility of the petitioner is not in issue. Admittedly, he was appointed as an Attender, in the services of the 1st respondent institution, on 30.07.2000, on the ground of his father being declared as medically invalidated. The petitioner, having accepted the said post without any demur whatsoever, cannot seek review of his appointment now after lapse of almost nine years. Further, the posts, which were said to be vacant at that relevant point of time, were duly filled in by promoting the eligible candidates and therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment in such posts.
On this ground alone, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
---------------------------(GHULAM MOHAMMED,J)
---------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)
4th August 2009
ksld
..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}
3rd August 2009
ksld
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who accepted appointment via compassionate grounds after a decade can challenge it seeking a higher post.
Whether provisions for cadre promotion are frustrated when vacancies at the time of appointment were filled by promotions of eligible candidates.
Whether the appointment in a compassionate category is legally reviewable after a long lapse of time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No. 22025 of 2008Distinguished¶9
Writ Petition No. 22025 of 2008
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishna (son of K.L. Krishna)
Respondent Institution
Ghulam Mohammed
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
