Disposed

Sri Venkateswara Bhaktha Sangham, v. The Project Director

Telangana HC8 Feb 2012WP/21236/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench disposed of a writ petition regarding the regularization of a Field Assistant post reserved for an SC woman. The court directed respondents to conduct regular selection within two months, allowing the current rival candidate to apply if eligible, despite the petitioner-having been absent.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 directed to conduct regular selection for Field Assistant post within two months in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 471/2007.

Sri Venkateswara Bhaktha Sangham, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WP NO. 21236 OF 2011

¶3

Date of Judgment: 8.2.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Venkateswara Bhaktha Sangham

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

WP NO. 21236 OF 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard learned counsel for respondent No.6 who has filed vacate stay petition as well as the learned standing counsel for official respondents 1 to 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not present.

¶14

There is a serious objection raised to the extent of maintainability of the writ petition by petitioner-society in a service matter where the respondent No.6 was appointed as Field Assistant to work under respondents 1 to 3. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 primarily contends

¶15

that the petitioner-society who is a third party could not have approached this Court by this writ petition, as it is in the nature of espousing the cause in public interest relating to service matters. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the respondent No.6 who was working for the last more than three to four years deserves to be continued till a regular appointment is made. It is also contended that though the notification was issued for appointment of an SC woman candidate as per the reservation policy, in the absence of any eligible candidate coming up for selection, the respondent No.6 was asked to look after and was acting as such.

¶16

The official respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counteraffidavit pointing out that the appointment of respondent No.6 in the post reserved for an SC woman had come to the notice of first respondent only after four years when the same was informed on 25.9.2010 and immediately the second respondent was asked to set right the issue. It is stated that the respondent No.6 was performing the duties of Field Assistant as per the oral orders of then Programme Officer and the allegation that the respondent No.6 is none other than the husband of Sarpanch of the village is found to be correct.

¶17

This court, while entertaining the writ petition on 1.8.2011, granted interim direction after considering the reply of second respondent and as per the interim direction, the respondents 1 and 2 were directed not to

¶18

permit the respondent No.6 to function as Field Assistant and not to pay salary to him henceforth. Liberty was, however, left to the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint a regular Field Assistant as per the relevant rules.

¶19

The counter-affidavit of official respondents states that as per the interim direction, the services of respondent No.6 had been withdrawn with effect from 8.9.2011.

¶20

Considering all these issues and keeping in view the principal objection of respondent No.6 that the writ petition by the petitioner-society is not maintainable, this Court has considered the matter without reference to the writ petition, inasmuch as the dismissal of the writ petition would revive an otherwise patently illegal appointment of respondent No.6. Keeping further in mind that even according to the respondent No.6 as well as the counter affidavit of first respondent, the respondent No.6 was not eligible to hold the said post, the continuation of respondent No.6 in the said post was rightly not found desirable by this Court while passing the interim order. Now the respondent No.6 is not working since 8.9.2011.

¶21

In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as well as the vacate stay petition by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take up regular selection for the post of Field Assistant as per G.O. Ms. No. 471, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dated 15.10.2007 and rules of reservation.

¶22

The respondent No.6 is at liberty to apply for the post if he is eligible under the rules and his candidature along with other eligible candidates shall also be considered and regular appointment shall be made by the respondents 1 and 2 in terms of the rules within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

The writ petition as well as the vacate stay petitionWVMP No. 4812 of 2011 is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶24

_________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶25

Dt. 8.2.2012 KR

Sri Venkateswara Bhaktha Sangham, v. The Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkateswara Bhaktha Sangham, v. The Project Director

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

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

B.Obul Reddy Vs The Project Offier and Ex.officio Joint Secretary

S.Yadaiah Vs Sri Sk. Noor Ahmed, Depot Manager

Smt. T. Bhadramma, Vs The Managing Director, Mother Diary