Allowed

Tabeti Devasahayam, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC11 Mar 2014WP/6951/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's application for re-appointment. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the grounds of discrimination when a similarly situated petitioner was granted appointment. The court noted a laches defense was raised but prior

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for fresh consideration with a direction to dispose of the Original Application in accordance w

Tabeti Devasahayam, Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶2

AND

¶3

HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE ANIS

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.6951 of 2014

¶5

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶6

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to order, dated 23.06.2010, in O.A. No.4946 of 2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same, and consequently declare the termination orders, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶7

2. The petitioner – applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application to declare the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not considering his case for re-appointment as an attender in the 3^rd respondent office even though he was acquitted from the criminal case on 31.10.2006, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner before the tribunal was that he was appointed as Attender in the 3^rd respondent office vide orders, dated 12.07.1999. The respondents have terminated his service within one month on the ground that Crime No.196/1999 has been registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The trial Court convicted him of the said offences, but in the appeal, the lower appellate Court acquitted him. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the authorities, to re-appoint him in the same post. But the respondents rejected the same on the ground that the Memorandum of

¶8

Marks of 7^th class of the petitioner was bogus, and he did not challenge the termination orders issued in 1999, and hence, he is not entitled for re-appointment. The Tribunal, through its order, dated 23.06.2010, dismissed the O.A. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶9

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one Kondeti Lazarus, who was involved in the same criminal case, along with the petitioner, filed O.A. No.11113 of 2009, that the said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal and Lazarus was given appointment, that the case of the petitioner is almost similar to the applicant in O.A. No.11113 of 2009, but the Tribunal has not considered his case and therefore, he prays to remand the matter to the Tribunal.

¶11

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services – II contended that the impugned order was passed in 2010, and therefore, on the ground of laches, this writ petition has to be dismissed.

¶12

6. There should not be any discrimination when two persons were similarly situated. On the ground of discrimination, the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. The case of the petitioner is similar when compared with the case of the applicant in O.A. No.11113 of 2009. Therefore, when the facts are almost similar, there cannot be two orders, one contradicts with the other.

¶13

7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 23.06.2010, in O.A. No.4946 of 2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The matter is

¶14

remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with a request to dispose of the O.A. in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

______________ K. C. BHANU, J

¶16

_____________ ANIS, J March 11, 2014. KTL

Tabeti Devasahayam, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabeti Devasahayam, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of a.P., Vs K Venkateswarlu

C. Narsimlu Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices

S.Venkanna Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Sri K. Rajanna, Gr.I Warden

P. Ramanaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Khaja Mahamood Ali Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh