Disposed

D.a.Krishna, v. The Apsrtc, Rep.by Executive Director (Hcz)

Telangana HC29 Dec 2011WP/34037/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought writ mandamus for employment as a conductor after selection, alleging illegal exclusion due to illness-induced delay. Directed to file a fresh representation within two weeks for the respondents to consider and pass orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent within two weeks; respondents to consider and pass orders within four weeks.

D.a.Krishna, Vs The Apsrtc, Rep.by Executive… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 34037 OF 2011

¶6

Between: D.A. Krishna … Petitioner V/s. APSRTC Represented by its Executive Director (HCZ) JBS/PICKET, Secunderabad & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G. Praveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K. Madhava Reddy SC for APSRTC

¶8

The Court made the following : (Order follows next page)

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 34037 OF 2011

¶11

O R D E R :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶13

standing counsel for the respondents.

¶14

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not providing employment in the corporation for the post of conductor, as he was selected as per the selection list dated 06-05-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to provide him employment in the post of conductor in the respondent-corporation as per the selection list dated 06-05-2009 and panel No. 487 issued by the respondents and to pass such other suitable orders

¶15

as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶16

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected for the post of conductor and was sent a call letter. Thereafter, he was sent for medical examination and was found fit in the medical examination. But due to misfortune he fell ill. It is stated that the first respondent addressed a letter

¶17

on 06-5-2009 to the third respondent duly enclosing the selection list wherein his name is figured at serial No.1 in the selection list. While things stood thus, he suffered from jaundice and could not report within time to the respondent-depot. It is stated that he took some ayurvedic and herbal medicines. Thereafter, he suffered from Amebosis and took treatment from 2009 to 2010 and he filed medical certificate in proof thereof. It is further stated that after recovery from illness, he approached the third respondent and he was orally informed that his case will be considered.

¶18

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected on 06-05-2009, since he could not report to duty in time due to his prolonged illness and that there was lapse on the part of the petitioner. However, it is for the respondent-corporation to consider the case of the petitioner, in the event if he makes any representation.

¶19

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a representation afresh to the second respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter it is open for the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a

¶20

period of four weeks, thereafter.

¶21

6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs.

¶22

---------------------------------------JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶23

29-12-2011 I s L

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO. 34037 OF 2011

¶26

CIRCULATION NO. 31 Date:29-12-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

D.a.Krishna, v. The Apsrtc, Rep.by Executive Director (Hcz)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.a.Krishna, v. The Apsrtc, Rep.by Executive Director (Hcz)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Chaitanya Bharati Institute of Technology, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Controlling Authori

R.S. Narayana Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M. Jayakumar, Vs The Managing Director

D. Uma Rani Vs Andhra PRadesh State Road Transport Corporation

N.R.Thirtha Vs Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan

R. Seetaiah Vs The Regional Manager