Disposed

Liyakhath Ali Mohammad, v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC7 Feb 2012WP/2097/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning employment under the land loser category, the court disposed of the matter by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature on its merits based on his qualifications and eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the petitioner's candidature on its merits for a suitable post based on qualifications and eligibility.

Liyakhath Ali Mohammad, Vs The Government of A.P. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.2097 of 2012

¶3

Dt:- 07.02.2012

¶4

Between:- Liyakhath Ali MOhammad

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

and

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following:-

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.2097 of 2012

¶12

ORDER: -

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Raghu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶14

Petitioner, who claims to be a land loser under Award No.12/75 with regard to R.S.No.40/1 of Guntupalli village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, seeks benefit of policy of the Government and the respondent-Board regarding providing employment to the land loser’s family. Petitioner, who has studied B.Com., sought consideration of his candidature under the aforesaid land loser’s category. Petitioner states that on his behalf his father has already filed requisite application and the same was recommended by the District Collector, Krishna under his letter dispatch No.4656/10 (G2), dated 28.12.2010. But alleging inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the present writ petition is filed.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 states that the notification for filling up vacancies so far has been for technical posts and since the petitioner apparently holds a Graduate

¶16

qualification in non-technical category, as and when the vacancies in non-technical category arise, petitioner’s case would be considered.

¶17

In view of the said submission of the learned Standing Counsel, therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner on its own merits for suitable post keeping in view his qualification and eligibility as per rules. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

_____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶19

07.02.2012 lmv

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.2097 of 2012

¶22

07.02.2012

¶23

lmv

Liyakhath Ali Mohammad, v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liyakhath Ali Mohammad, v. The Government of A.P.

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

Pulaa Ison Vs The Mandal Parishad Development officer, Natametta

Merugu Kishore kumar, Vs The Managing Director

Smt. Salem Unnisa Begum Vs The Government of a.P., rep. by Principal Secretary

D.Nandya, Vs a.P.Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.

Prof. Velamala Simmanna, Vs The Honble Chancellor of Government of

M.Sudhakar Goud Vs Ap Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., rep.by