Writ petition challenging rejection of appointment, dismissed as petitioner had no right to appointment due to lack of sanctioned posts and the Court refuses to interfere with selection committee's decision.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.1390 OF 2001
DATED 4 TH MARCH, 2010
BETWEEN
D.Guru Murthy … Petitioner And The Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, Nampally, Hyderabad. … Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.1390 OF 2001
ORDER:
The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings in Rc.No.3917/2000/B1 dated 13.10.2000 passed by the Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rejecting his case for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer & Chief Personnel Officer.
The petitioner responded to the advertisement issued on 13.11.1999 by the Andhra Pradesh State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Factories Limited, Hyderabad, for filling up, amongst other posts, the post of Administrative Officer & Chief Personnel Officer. He was interviewed by the duly constituted Selection Committee on 26.02.2000. However, as he was not selected he approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.5668 of 2000, wherein, by interim order dated 13.09.2000, this Court directed the respondents therein to consider his case for appointment to the said post in accordance with law. Thereupon, the impugned proceeding dated 13.10.2000 was passed rejecting his case for appointment to the subject post on the ground that he had not performed well in the Interview and as there were no sanctioned posts available.
No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent till date.
However, in view of the categorical statement made in the impugned proceeding that there were no sanctioned posts of Administrative Officer & Chief Personnel Officer so as to consider the candidature of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot claim any manner of right for appointment to the said post. Further, the impugned proceeding also reflects that the Selection Committee had not selected the petitioner basing on his performance during the Interview. It is not for this Court to sit in appeal over such selection or substitute its view for that of the Selection Committee.
Viewed from any angle the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J.
4TH MARCH, 2010. VGSR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim a right for appointment when no sanctioned posts were available.
Whether this Court can sit in appeal or substitute its view over the Selection Committee's decision regarding interview performance.
D. Guru Murthy
Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, Nampally, Hyderabad
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
