Disposed

Chintham Reddy Shekar Reddy Sekhar Reddy, v. The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Telangana HC15 Mar 2010WP/22517/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged alteration of selection rank in a retail outlet selection process as arbitrary. Court avoided merits, invoking internal guidelines, directing corporation to treat petition as a complaint for committee review within two weeks and stay appointment orders pending outcome.

What did the court decide?

Respondent corporation directed to treat the writ petition as a complaint, refer it to the grievance committee for examination within two weeks, and not issue appointment orders pending the committee'

Chintham Reddy Shekar Reddy Sekhar Reddy, Vs The… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN

¶4

PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.22517 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Chintham Reddy Shekar Reddy

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

And

¶10

The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Tadepalli, Guntur District & another.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Venumadhav

¶13

Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy

¶14

Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri O. Manohar Reddy

¶15

This Court made the following:

¶16

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.22517 of 2009

¶18

ORDER:-

¶19

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in altering the result by issuing a second result sheet awarding first rank to respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶20

I have heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶21

The petitioner and respondent No.2 applied for the retail outlet of respondent No.1 Corporation at Ramapuram on Kadapa-Rayachoty Road, Kadapa district. It is admitted that initially the name of respondent No.2 was shown at rank No.4 of the selection list while the petitioner was shown at rank No.1. Later, there was alteration in the list by which respondent No.2 is shown at rank No.1 and the petitioner is shown at rank No.2. This action of respondent No.1 is questioned in this writ petition.

¶22

The learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1, on instructions, submitted that initially respondent No.2 was awarded only 25 marks for infrastructure and 12 marks for educational qualifications. Later on, the department, on a further examination, realized that since respondent No.2 holds registered lease deed, he was entitled to 35 marks towards possessing infrastructure and 15 marks for educational qualification, as he holds B.Tech degree. He submitted that in view of the same, the additional marks were added to respondent No.2 and

¶23

thereby his rank has undergone a change.

¶24

In my opinion, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate the issue raised in this writ petition, because, under guideline 19 of the Guidelines for Selection of Retail Outlet Dealers of respondent No.1 Corporation, the grievance/complaint redressal system is envisaged. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to treat this writ petition as a complaint and refer the same to the committee concerned to examine the grievance/complaint of the petitioner. It shall ensure that within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order the grievance committee examines the complaint of the petitioner, pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Pending passing of such an order, respondent No.1 shall not issue any appointment order.

¶25

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.29245 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶27

_____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶28

Date: 15.03.2010 ES

Chintham Reddy Shekar Reddy Sekhar Reddy, v. The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintham Reddy Shekar Reddy Sekhar Reddy, v. The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited

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

E.Madhusudhan Rao Vs The Superintendent Engineer, Kakatiya Thermal

M. Mohan Krishna, Vs Secunderabad Contonment Board

T.Ramesh Reddy Vs Union Bank of India., High Court of Branch

Cheruku Ranga Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Chetti Komuraiah, Vs The Station House Officer/Sub-Inspector of Police

B.Rajkumar Goud Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its