Remanded

P.H.v.R.Tagore v. The commissioner and Director of intermediate Education

Telangana HC3 Mar 2014WP/5889/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged an order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal regarding service regularization as a Lab Attender. The High Court found the Tribunal failed to address key issues and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside; the matter is remanded for disposal after giving an opportunity to respondents to file their counter.

P.H.v.R.Tagore Vs The commissioner… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 5889 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.08.2013 in O.A. No.295 of 2011 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶6

2. Heard both sides.

¶7

3. The relief sought in the Original Application is to quash the proceedings in Rc. No.VOC.1-1/968/2005, dated 22.10.2010 issued by the first respondent and consequently direct respondents 1 to 3 to regularize the services of the petitioner/applicant as Lab Attender in Government Junior College, Kaikalur, Krishna District. The said Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal stating that in view of the order dated 19.07.2011 in M.A. NO.1698 of 2011 in the said Original Application, no further orders need to be passed in the Original Application. The order dated 19.07.2011 passed by the Tribunal in M.A. No.1698 of 2011, reads thus:

¶8

“The respondents are directed to examine the case of the applicant regarding payment of salary at Rs.2,000/per month from August, 2010 as per the proceedings in Rc. No.Voc.1-1968/2005, dated 22.10.2010 issued by the Director of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The M.A. is disposed of accordingly.”

¶9

4. The main issue involved in the Original Application

¶10

is to quash the proceedings in Rc. No.VOC.1-1/968/2005, dated 22.10.2010 issued by the first respondent and consequently direct respondents 1 to 3 to regularize the services of the petitioner/applicant as Lab Attender. These two aspects have not been adverted to, by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for disposal in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to respondents to file their counter and reply, if any, by the applicant.

¶11

5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed remanding the matter to the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

-----------------------(K.C. BHANU, J.)

¶13

----------------( ANIS, J.)

¶14

03.03.2014 DRK

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶16

WRIT PETITION No. 5889 OF 2014 (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶17

03.03.2014

P.H.v.R.Tagore v. The commissioner and Director of intermediate Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.H.v.R.Tagore v. The commissioner and Director of intermediate Education

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

G.V. Krishna Kumar, Vs The Special Officer

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Vs D. Sukanya

K.Krishna Singh, Vs Additional Director General of Police (Administration)

K.v.Nagaprabhu Kumar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.Nagaraju Vs Union of India

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs v.Chalapathi