The petitioner challenged the appointment of a 5th respondent with lower raw marks but higher percentage, claiming violation of constitutional rights. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous since the respondent's one-year appointment had elapsed.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.
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.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No.1342 OF 2009
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings dated 30.10.2008, issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, null and void and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for appointment as 2nd MPHA (F)/Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM), as per her merit with all consequential benefits by holding that the action of the respondents in appointing the 5th respondent who got less marks than the petitioner and depriving the petitioner’s genuine claim as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and subversive of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the 5th respondent belong to B.C-‘D’ community. Notification dated 13.08.2002 was issued for inviting the applications to fill up the posts of ANMs from eligible candidates on out sourcing basis for one year and petitioner made an application. The 5th respondent secured only 520 marks whereas the petitioner got 683 marks in qualifying examination. Therefore, the petitioner is much meritorious than the 5th respondent and accordingly she is entitled to be appointed to the post.
A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it has been categorically set out in para No.6:
the merit marks of 527 out of 700 for which the percentage of marks comes to 75.29%. The language shown in part one of the qualified vocational examination of 300 marks are not to be considered for calculating the merit percentage.”
The 5th respondent having higher percentage of marks as stated in the counter-affidavit, has not been denied by the petitioner. Further, the very appointment of the 5th respondent is only for one year i.e., up to 30.10.2009. Inasmuch as the one year time has already elapsed, there remains nothing in the writ petition and the very relief that is sought in the writ petition both on merits and also on account of the lapse of time granted has become infructuous.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
Date:24.11.2014 Gk.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No.1342 OF 2009
Date:24.11.2014.
Gk.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable after the expiry of the one-year outsourcing appointment term.
Whether the court should grant relief when the appointment has become infructuous due to lapse of time.
Petitioner
3rd Respondent
5th Respondent
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
