Dismissed

A. Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. The A.P. Public Service Commission, Rep. by its

Telangana HC3 Jun 2014WP/12734/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging the Appellate Tribunal's rejection of a claim for appointment in a reserved category post. The court held that bona fide appointments and presence of incumbents barred relief despite alleged irregularities, and noted significant laches due to the petitioner's current employment status.

What the court decided

AI extract

A. Sri Ramachandra Murthy Vs The A.P. Public… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 12734 of 2007

¶3

O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)

¶4

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.6.2006 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3229 of 2002.

¶5

The petitioner herein filed O.A. 3229 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his claim for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector for the vacancy meant for BC-A candidate in the selections held pursuant to the Advertisement No. 16 of 1993, issued by APPSC, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Collector under the direct recruitment quota meant for BC-A category. The Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide Advertisement No.16 of 1993 for Group-I selections, out of 16 posts of Deputy Collectors, one post is reserved for BC-A candidate. The petitioner got 96^th rank in the general list and 8^th rank

¶8

under BC-A group. One Ms. Vijaya Lakshmi who got 25^th rank among BC-A candidates was selected but she did not join and therefore he ought to have been selected for that vacancy, but the respondents did not respond to the representation made by the petitioner for selecting him in that vacancy and therefore the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner for the post of Deputy Collector is illegal and arbitrary.

¶9

However, it is seen from the material available on record that the said Vijaya Lakshmi who belongs to BC-A category was selected in O.C. Category on the basis of merit but not under the BC-A category and when she did not join, the said post was filled up. It is to be further seen that one B. Rama Rao was selected to the post kept for BC-A category, as he got better ranking than the applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected the case of the petitioner.

¶10

An additional affidavit has been filed today alleging that fraud has been committed by the respondents by keeping him in darkness and there are no laches on his part for the delay. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the petitioner at this belated time cannot question the appointments made in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 16/93, more particularly, when the incumbents have already been joined in their respective posts. The petitioner, who is working as Special Deputy Collector, would have been more diligent in questioning the

¶11

selections immediately after the said selections were over and there is

¶12

no material to that effect.

¶13

Under the above circumstances, we find no merit in

¶14

the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

T. MEENA KUMARI, J. G. CHANDRAIAH, J. Date: 21-06-2007.

¶16

MVB.

A. Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. The A.P. Public Service Commission, Rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A. Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. The A.P. Public Service Commission, Rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretar Vs S. Ganapathi Rao

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs a. Nishikanth

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs C.Venkateshwar Rao

N. Prem Kumar, Vs Director General, Films Division

Union of India, Vs Yala Ramakrishna

B. Ramalinga Reddy Vs Govt. of a.P., Rep. by its Secretary