Disposed

S.Siva Shankar, v. The Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Apr 2009WP/24689/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-regularization of his services as part-time masalchi under a specific circular. The court disposed of the petition by directing respondents to consider his case under a subsequent 2006 notification driven by a fresh appointment process.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's case for appointment pursuant to the selection process under notification dated 17.8.2006.

S.Siva Shankar, Vs The Honble High Court of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 24689 of 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

S.Siva Shankar, S/o.Mallaiah R/o.H.No.41/513-4, Kothapeta, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Registrar (Admn.), Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The Hon'ble District Judge, District & Sessions Court, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Hon'ble II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶12

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not regularizing the Petitioner's services to the post of Attender/Masalchi in pursuance of the Circular Rc.No.2708/2003-D(5), dated 26.7.2004 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Attender/Masalchi in pursuance of the Circular Rc.No.2708/2003-D(5), dated 26.7.2004 and pass such further other order or orders.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR APHC) D.V.SITHARAM MURTHY

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel

¶19

for the respondents.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as part-time masalchi by the District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool vide order No.Dis.No.2835/Estt/98, dated 10.4.1998. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action in not regularizing the petitioner’s service in the post of Attender/Masalchi in pursuance of the Circular Rc.No.2708/2003-D(5), dated 26.7.2004 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Attender/Masalchi.

¶21

It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition a fresh notification was issued for making appointment to the posts of Attender, Process Server etc., pursuant to which the petitioner made an application and he was also interviewed on 24.1.2009. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing for disposal of the writ petition on merits, but he submits that the case of the petitioner may be considered as he was also interviewed pursuant to the notification dated 17.8.2006.

¶22

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment pursuant to the selection process initiated under the notification dated 17.8.2006.

¶23

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶24

______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 1.4.2009 kpr

S.Siva Shankar, v. The Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Siva Shankar, v. The Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Bandi Saraswathi, Vs The Election Commission of India

Ajeya Bharat Party Vs The Chief Election Commissioner

G. Prabhakar Rao Vs Indian Bank

Kalva Bojjanna Vs The Election Commission of India

Rashtriya Praja Congress (Secular) having its Vs The Election Commission of India

Rayapudi Laxman Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh