Dismissed

Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, v. Sardar Singh Palthiya

Telangana HC5 Feb 2014WA/1816/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against direction to appoint a SC candidate to the post of Assistant Director. Appeal resolved by stating that the single judge order was complied with via interim directions and required no modification.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of by holding that no further orders needed as single judge's direction was complied with.

Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

W.A.NO.1816 OF 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)

¶4

Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant – Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

¶5

2. The appellant – Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA), represented by its Executive Director (Administration), issued notification dated 23.10.2010 for filling up the posts of Assistant Director (Legal), Assistant Director (Actuary) and Assistant Director (Accounts). Under Assistant Director (Legal), five posts were notified and out of them, two posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribes (S.Ts.). The minimum qualification prescribed for this post was, an LL.B. degree from a recognized university and a desired experience of two years. The mode of selection was by way of written examination.

¶6

3. The respondent who was a practicing advocate belonging to S.T. community, with two years of experience and with an LL.M. degree in Corporate Law, applied for the post of Assistant Director (Legal) and attended the written examination and thereafter oral interview, and eventually remained unsuccessful.

¶7

4. Aggrieved by his non-selection, the respondent preferred writ petition in W.P.No.28304 of 2011 and the learned single Judge of this court by order dated 1.10.2013 allowed the writ petition and the operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶8

“To sum up, the petitioner was found eligible in terms of the cut-off mark prescribed for the written examination but was thereafter eliminated from the selection owing to his alleged failure in the interview. No minimum mark was prescribed for the interview by the competent authority but a ranking system was adopted midway through the selection process in violation of settled law. Further, there is also no record of his performance during the said interview. This Court therefore holds that the petitioner ought not have been excluded from the zone of consideration basing on the said interview.

¶9

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be a direction to the IRDA to appoint the petitioner to the available unfilled post of Assistant Director (Legal) in ST category. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition shall stand closed in the light of this final order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶10

5. Challenging the above order, the IRDA filed the present writ appeal.

¶11

6. This court by interim order dated 16.12.2013 in WAMP.No.3705/2013 in W.A.No.1816/2013, considering the submissions of the respective counsel, directed the appellant to constitute a committee and consider the case of the respondent. The relevant portion of the interim order is as under:

¶12

“Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, pending further orders, the appellant – IRDA shall constitute an appropriate committee afresh, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on intimation to the respondent the date and time of interview, shall consider his case for appointment to the post of Assistant Director (Legal), within a period of two weeks thereafter and shall communicate the consequential order to the respondent.”

¶13

7. The learned Senior Counsel Sri D.Prakash Reddy, submitted that pursuant to the above interim directions in the writ appeal, a committee was constituted and the said committee had considered the case of the writ petitioner/respondent and as a matter of fact, he has been given the offer of appointment dated 22.1.2014 and he had joined on 27.1.2014 in the post. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that to avoid future controversy, the order of the learned single Judge in giving positive direction to appoint the writ petitioner/respondent, may be modified to that of directing the appellant to ‘consider’ the case of the writ petitioner.

¶14

8. Inasmuch as, now the order of the learned single Judge virtually stands complied with after independent consideration of the case of the writ petitioner, by virtue of the interim directions, no further orders need be passed and the writ appeal is disposed of in terms of the directions given in the interim order.

¶15

9. No order as to costs.

¶16

10. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

--------------------------------------------G.CHANDRAIAH,J

¶18

----------------------------------------------

¶19

CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J

¶20

DATE:5.2.2014 AVS

Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, v. Sardar Singh Palthiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, v. Sardar Singh Palthiya

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

Commissioner of Wealth tax-Vi, Hyderabad. Vs Sb. Nazeebunnisa Begum

Commissioner of Wealth-tax-Vi, Vs Sb. Haleema Begum

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vi, Hyderabad. Vs Nb.Namdar Ali Khan

K.Mallikarjun Rao Vs Union of India

Gajender Singh, Vs Union of India

The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyd. Vs State Bank of Hyderabad.