Dismissed

A. Bharath Kumar v. The District Collector

Telangana HC7 Dec 2010WP/27574/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition filed by a son of a deceased fair price shop dealer was dismissed. The Court held that in the absence of a specific provision entitling family members of deceased dealers to appointment, the petitioner cannot claim a right to disregard the normal procedure of calling for applications and considering eligible candidates.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition praying for a mandamus to set aside the impugned notification was dismissed.

A. Bharath Kumar Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.27574 of 2010

Between:

A. Bharath Kumar

..... Petitioner

AND

The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Town & others.

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri R. Govindu

¶13

Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27574 of 2010

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notification dated 16.09.2010 of respondent No.2 calling for applications for filling up the permanent dealership vacancy of fair price shop No.19 of Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶18

The father of the petitioner was a permanent fair price shop dealer of the abovementioned shop. In an unfortunate road accident he has died on 09.07.2010 after serving as fair price shop dealer for 19 years. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of appointing him in his father’s place, respondent No.2 has issued a notification calling for applications for filling up the vacancy.

¶19

It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that under the instant control order, the family members of the deceased fair price shop dealers are entitled to be appointed in his place. In the absence of any such provision, the petitioner cannot claim any right for appointment without the respondents following the normal procedure of notifying the vacancy and considering the eligible candidates.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has also applied in pursuance of the impugned notification. This being so, he is entitled to compete with other eligible candidates for being appointed in the vacancy.

¶21

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶22

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.35206 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed.

¶23

Date: 07.12.2010 ES

¶24

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

A. Bharath Kumar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Bharath Kumar v. The District Collector

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

Mamatha Educational Society Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Smt.Rudrapati Anasuyamma Vs The State of A.P

Vempati Venkata Ravanamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kondamudi Benerjee Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer and 2 Others

Hanmanthu Vs TheChief Executive Officer

Chinnaiah Vs The Chief Executive Officer