Disposed

V. Sivarama Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Telangana HC17 Nov 2011WP/27014/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging rejection of proposals to admit teachers to grant-in-aid posts. Court left matter open for third petitioner to convince authorities of post availability and disposed of other aspects.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to re-examine order with Director of Intermediate Education regarding availability of regular post.

V. Sivarama Krishna Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.27014 OF 1999

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition has been instituted challenging the validity of the proceedings dated 17.06.1999 passed by the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rejecting the proposals sent up by the third respondent-College for admitting the three petitioners herein into grant-in-aid posts, as not feasible of compliance. It is stated in the said order that the first petitioner is only appointed as Water-boy for the cycle stand and the second petitioner was not even found working as a Sweeper on the rolls of the college as per the audit reports whereas, the third respondent was shown as a Night Watchman but however, he was appointed during ban period.

¶5

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is fair enough in suggesting that insofar as the first and second petitioners are concerned, since they have already attained the age of superannuation, perhaps the cause in this writ petition would not survive any further. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would make a strenuous effort to convince this Court that Night Watchman is essential for every college, as college will have valuable records and properties and they need to be protected during night time. Therefore, to the extent of regularization/admitting the third petitioner against the grant-in-aid posts, the request of the third respondent-College should not have been declined.

¶6

3. The contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the third petitioner is depending upon factors such as sanctioning of a Night Watchman post on regular basis to the third respondent-College. If a contingent post of a Night Watchman is sanctioned, as to whether such a contingent post will fructify over a period of time into a regular post or not has got to be examined. Therefore, leaving it open to the third petitioner to convince the Director of Intermediate Education as to the availability of a regular post of watchman

¶7

which is admitted to grant-in-aid, the request of the petitioner for admitting him against such post can be considered.

¶8

4. Therefore, I leave it open to the third petitioner herein to take up the matter with the Director of Intermediate Education by producing necessary material and on that basis and strength, request for reexamination of the impugned order so far as he is concerned.

¶9

5. Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶10

_______________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶11

sp 17.11.2011

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶13

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.27014 OF 1999

¶15

17^th November, 2011

V. Sivarama Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Sivarama Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

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

M/s. Mbs Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri jaganmohan Rao

M.Mohan Krishna, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

M.C.H. Swamulu, E-404578, Apsrtc Driver Vs Sri Prasada Rao

K.Rama Mohana Rao, E-85341, Vs Sri Prasada Rao

Shaik Allabaksh Vs Jouladi Mangathai

Polavarapu Eshwar Rao, Vs Shaik Shajadi