Petitioner challenged non-declaration of results in an LDC recruitment drive. Respondents admitted cancelling the process due to cadre restructuring. Court noted no vacant posts remained and dismissed the petition without costs.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.26842 of 2011
BETWEEN
Ms. B. Pramoda.
PETITIONER
AND
The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, ECIL Post, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. RAVINUTHALA GOPI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondents: MR. PONNAM ASHOK GOUD ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents.
2. Petitioner, who was aspirant for the post of LDC in the respondent - organization, participated in the selection and was permitted to appear for the written examination. Complaining that her results have not been declared and that the respondents are not considering her for appointment, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The respondents have now filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, specifically stating at pages 6 and 7 thereof that the Department of Atomic Energy has implemented the second Cadre Review by restructuring the existing cadre to harmonize the functional needs and thereby, in such restructuring, the number of posts in the cadre of LDC’s are now reduced from 64 to 6 and additional posts in higher grades are created. It is stated that in view of the said restructuring the Department has decided not to continue the remaining process of recruitment i.e. declaration of results, calling for typing test etc. and out of the aforesaid 6 posts, three vacancies are filled up by compassionate appointment, two by promotion from erstwhile Group D staff and one by accommodating LDC (Hindi).
4. It is, therefore, clear from the above that the recruitment process stands cancelled by the respondents in view of restructuring of the department. Since the petitioner’s legal right is only for consideration of her candidature, if recruitment process is taken up, she cannot compel the respondents to fill up the posts even if left vacant. As per the counter affidavit, after restructuring no post remains for recruitment and even otherwise,
the respondents have cancelled the entire recruitment process. In view of that no orders can be passed, as prayed for.
Recording the averments in the counter affidavit, as above, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 3, 2012 DSK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition can be disposed of after the respondents admitted cancelling the recruitment process due to department restructuring.
Ms. B. Pramoda
The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, ECIL Post, Hyderabad
Two others
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
