Partly allowed

Madikonda Devender S/o Late M.Sudarshana v. The Principle Secretary to Government of A.P.

Telangana HC2 Apr 2013WP/9684/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to include petitioner in the selection process for archaka post. Petitioner's representation was treated as an application despite missing the notification date.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be subjected to selection process for archaka post; authorities to consider age limit relaxation.

Madikonda Devender S/o Late… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 9684 of 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 5^th respondent, the Executive Officer of Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Inavole village, in issuing the notification dated 20.03.2013, calling for applications for the post of archaka in the temple, as illegal.

¶5

Heard Sri Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the 5^th respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, who accepted notice on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that he has passed S.S.C. examination conducted by the State Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh and thereafter passed Pravesaka examination conducted by the Commissioner of Endowments to render himself eligible and qualified for holding the post of archaka. However, he was appointed on 27.12.1998 as a cook-cum-assistant archaka of the temple and he is now functioning as such in the temple. Since promotions were granted to the other religious staff in the temple, resulting in one vacancy of archaka, the petitioner has submitted a representation seeking consideration of his case also for such promotion as he was working as an Assistant archaka in the temple. However, no orders are said to have been passed on that representation and in the meantime, the impugned notification has

¶7

been issued calling for applications for direct recruitment of an archaka. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶8

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent has pointed out that the post of an archaka is liable to be filled up by direct recruitment method and hence, the Commissioner of Endowments has directed the institution to advertise the vacancy, so that all eligible candidates can appear and compete and the schedule of selection is also finalized setting-forth the date of selection as 04.04.2013 in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments at Warangal. Since the petitioner has not applied for the said post, his case cannot be considered. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also would reiterate the same contentions and would submit that since the petitioner has not chosen to apply along with others, he cannot seek a direction from this Court for appearing at the selections.

¶9

The learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent could not be more accurate and correct in their submissions. If a candidate has not responded to a notification, in spite of his knowing the same, he would be running the risk of losing the opportunity, but however, one fact that remains to be considered in this case is the writ petitioner seems to have submitted a detailed representation on 21.03.2013 to the Commissioner of Endowments as well as the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments seeking consideration of his case also for promotion, since he is working as an assistant archaka. Unfortunately for the petitioner, even before his representation could be dealt with and answered one way or the other, the Executive Officer carried out the instructions of the Commissioner of Endowments and notified the vacancy. If the request of the writ petitioner is conceded by the

¶10

Commissioner, there would not have been an occasion for notifying the vacancy. Since the Commissioner has not done that so far, in principle, one cannot find fault with the 5^th respondent in notifying the vacancy.

¶11

However, the silver lining to the darker cloud is that the selections are slated to be held on 04.04.2013 in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal for all those candidates, who have offered their candidature. Since there was some justification for the petitioner not to have responded to the notification, in view of his legitimate aspiration of having his representation answered by the Commissioner, the representation of the writ petitioner, dated 21.03.2013 can be construed as an application itself for the post of archaka. Since the petitioner has asserted that he possessed the necessary qualifications, it is for him to produce the same immediately before the 5^th respondent Executive Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments.

¶12

Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing in this case, the 4^th respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal, is directed to subject the writ petitioner also for selection process for the post of archaka, which is slated for 04.04.2013 or on any other subsequent date, which he might fix for the said purpose. If the writ petitioner emerges as successful at the said test, his case may be considered for appointment as a direct recruit archaka. However, it shall be open to the respondents to consider whether it is desirable to relax the upper age limit in the case of the writ petitioner or not.

¶13

The Writ Petition stands disposed of with this order. No costs.

¶14

Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of. _____________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 02^nd April, 2013 Note: Issue CC today siva/Ksld THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶15

WRIT PETITION No. 9684 of 2013

¶16

DATE: 02.04.2013

¶17

siva/Ksld

Madikonda Devender S/o Late M.Sudarshana v. The Principle Secretary to Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madikonda Devender S/o Late M.Sudarshana v. The Principle Secretary to 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

Mohd. Baseer Naveed Vs A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society (Regd)

R.Karthik S/o Late Sri R.Deepak Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Smt. Chopra Eswari Vs The Apsrtc rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad

A.Parameswara S/o a.Chendrayudu Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M.Prasad, S/o Nallagondaiah Vs A.P.S.R.T.C Rep by its Vc and MD

Md. Chand Pasha, Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director