Dismissed

C. Ramana, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC4 Dec 2014WP/26868/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of five writ petitions challenging a notification for Fair Price Shop dealer vacancies. Petitioners alleged violation of reservation rules. The Court directed respondents to follow the reservation norms of G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 18.12.2008, while filling vacancies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to follow reservation norms of G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 18.12.2008 to fill vacancies.

C. Ramana, Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 26868, 26896, 26920, 26922 and 27507 of 2009

¶3

DATED 4^th December, 2014.

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

C. Ramana …Petitioner in WP.No. 26868 of 2009

¶6

V.Siva Sankarappa ….Petitioner in WP.No. 26896 of 2009 C.Ramakrishna ….Petitioner in WP.No.26820 of 2009

¶7

C.Lalithamma

¶8

…Petitioner in WP.No. 26922 of 2009

¶9

K.Lakshminarayana Reddy

¶10

….Petitioner in WP.No. 27507 of 2009

¶11

And

¶12

The District Collector, Ananthapur District, Ananthapur and ors.

¶13

…Respondents in all WPs.

¶14

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶15

WRIT PETITION Nos. 26868, 26896, 26920, 26922 and 27507 of 2009

¶16

COMMON ORDER:

¶17

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶18

In these Writ Petitions, the notification in RC.No.2004/2009/C, dated 01.12.2009 issued for filling up of

¶19

vacancies of Fair Price Shop dealers is challenged on the ground that the said notification was issued without following the rule of reservation as provided in G.O.Ms.No.52, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 18.12.2008.

¶20

A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 18.12.2009 the shortfall of percentage of reservation under reserved categories is to be observed and accordingly the vacancies have been notified in reserved categories and also in general. The details of vacant position as stated in the said GO were read as follows:

¶21

	Total No. of F.P.Shops	SC (15%)	ST (6%)	PHC (3%)	BC (25%)	Overall Women (30%)
F.P. Shops reservation to be observed as per G.O.Ms.No. 52, dt.18.12.2008	987	150	58	30	251	297
F.P.Shops existing		87	23	13	202	199
Shortfall in reservation		63	35	17	49	98
Notified in reserved categories		32	22	13	20	49

¶22

It is stated that in view of the above position, the percentage of reservation has been followed and there is no violation as alleged by the petitioners.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the petitioners after going through the above contents fairly submitted that if the rule of reservation is followed as provided under G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 18.12.2008, the petitioners have no grievance.

¶24

In the circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to follow the rule of reservation and maintain the same as provided in G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 18.12.2008 and fill-up the vacancies.

¶25

The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petitions shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.

¶26

JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶27

DATED 4^th December, 2014. Msnrx

C. Ramana, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Ramana, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Prakash Rao, Vs A.P. State Trading Corporation Limited

M.Prasad Vs The Director of MinesANDGelogy Govt of A.P

Mynoddin Elementary Teacher Education Instituion, Vs The Government of a.P., rep by its Principal Secretary

K.Surya Lakshmi, Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

K.Lakshminarayana Reddy Vs The District Collector

Modern College of Education, Gandhi Nagar, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its