Dismissed

Mekala Audiseshaiah v. The District Collector and Chairman

Telangana HC26 Apr 2012WP/12571/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Administrative Tribunal's rejection of his claim for appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher, alleging he scored higher than those appointed. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Bomb, the writ petition was dismissed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, were also dismissed; no order as to costs.

Mekala Audiseshaiah Vs The District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.12571 of 2012

¶3

Dated:26.04.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mekala Audiseshaiah.

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

And The District Collector & Chairman DSC 1998, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District – 524001, And others.

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.12571 of 2012

¶12

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶13

The petitioner with B.A., B.Ed., is statedly qualified for being appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in District Selection Committee 1998. He appeared for Teachers Recruitment Test. He alleges that he secured 53 marks, but those who secured 50, 45 and 40 marks were appointed. Making these allegations he filed O.A.No.8139 of 2011 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. By impugned order, the tribunal disposed of the Original Application observing that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be acceded to by the tribunal. This is assailed in this writ petition.

¶14

This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that though the respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the last candidate got 56.5 marks, he obtained the information to contend that many candidates who got lessor marks than the petitioner were appointed, and this is illegal and arbitrary. The submission cannot be accepted. The tribunal called for the records and rejected the relief.

¶15

The consideration by the tribunal while denying the relief to the petitioner, in our considered opinion, does not suffer from any error, and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.

¶16

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶18

26.04.2012 vs

Mekala Audiseshaiah v. The District Collector and Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala Audiseshaiah v. The District Collector and Chairman

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

Smt. K Vijayakumari Vs The Principal Secretary

M/s. Mbs Jewellers Private Limited, Vs The Debt Recovery Tribunal

M/s. Aditya Engineers and Technicians Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) - Audit

Dinesh Agarwal Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Sridevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

G. Saibaba, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh