Dismissed

Dr.a.Aruna Kumari, v. Smt.Kavitha Gurrala

Telangana HC1 Apr 2011WA/836/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice and a Judge disposed of an appeal where the contesting respondent of a lower writ petition sought to participate in an LPG gas distributor selection. The court directed authorities to consider both the appellant and the first respondent's cases during selection without influence from prior observations and dismissed the appeal while expediting the process.

What did the court decide?

Selection process to consider both appellant and first respondent; complete within four weeks.

Dr.a.Aruna Kumari, Vs Smt.Kavitha Gurrala — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI V.SURI APPA RAO

¶4

WRIT APPEAL NO.836 OF 2010

¶5

JUDGMENT:

¶6

Heard Kum. C.Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri O.Manohar Reddy and Sri K.Umapathy, learned counsel for the respondents. At their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶7

This appeal is at the instance of the contesting respondent in W.P.No.26290 of 2009 filed by the first respondent herein, where she sought to assail the action of the respondents 2 and 3 herein in proceeding with the selection and appointment of the appellant herein as Distributor for Domestic LPG Gas Distributor at Nandyal, Kurnool District. The matter was contested and the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition by an order dated 25.08.2010 setting aside the selection of the appellant and directing respondents 2 and 3 herein to proceed with the selection process and appointment among the other empanelled selected candidates by following due process of law. Apparently, the grievance of the appellant is that she is being totally excluded and therefore, necessarily, she may also be allowed to participate in the selection process along with the others. Hence, the appeal.

¶8

Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that the controversy being squarely narrow one in regard to the question of entitlement to any further such selection process, it is felt desirable to direct the authorities concerned to consider the cases of both the appellant and the first respondent

¶9

herein during the course of the selection process without excluding any of them and also without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge.

¶10

Subject to the above, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Further, the authorities shall expedite the selection process and complete the same within a period of four {4} weeks from today. No costs.

¶11

____________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, HACJ)

¶12

__________________ (V.SURI APPA RAO, J)

¶13

15^th November 2010 RRB

Dr.a.Aruna Kumari, v. Smt.Kavitha Gurrala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.a.Aruna Kumari, v. Smt.Kavitha Gurrala

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

Manepalli Mohan Rao Vs S.Suresh Kumar, I.a.S, Project Officer

Torlakonda Mangamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Torlakonda Mangamma Vs The Government of a.P., represented by its Secretary

M/s. Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., Vs The Authority under a.P.Shpps and Establishment Act, 1988-

K.Sivarama Krishna Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh,Industries and Commerce

R. Ramu Vs Sri Rameswar Roy