Dismissed

G. Soundarya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Mar 2014WP/8572/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order denying interim relief to a sports quota applicant. The Court held that since Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 was not amended to include sports reservation, the interim prayer was contrary to the notification and liable to be dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned order of the Tribunal was upholding. No order as to costs.

G. Soundarya, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.8572 OF 2014

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 28.2.2014, in M.A.No.623 of 2014 in O.A.No.1069 of 2014 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and set aside the same, and consequently, direct respondent Nos.1 to 5 to provide 2% reservation under sports quota as per G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 9.8.2012, in terms of Rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and to provide appointment to the petitioner as Village Revenue Officer (V.R.O.).

¶6

2. Petitioner herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to declare the action of the respondents in not providing reservation under Sports Quota in terms of the aforementioned Government Order for selection to the post of V.R.O in the Notification issued by respondent No.3 herein as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to provide Sports Category Reservation for the post of V.R.O to enable her case for consideration basing on the National Merit Sports Certificates in the selection. She also filed M.A.No.623 of 2014 in O.A.No.1069 of 2014 before the Tribunal to direct the respondents to allow her to submit her sports documents under Sports quota of 2% reservation as per Ex.A-4 for V.R.O. post in the unit of respondent No.3 herein and to select her in this sports quota pursuant to the results published on 24.2.2014 for V.R.O. selection without filling the vacancies meant for sports quota

¶7

pending disposal of the Original Application.

¶8

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, rejected the interim direction sought for by the applicant. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the applicant.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant contended that the Government issued executive instructions to reserve 2% of seats for the meritorious sports persons and therefore, he prays to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as V.R.O. in the existing vacancy in Mahaboobnagar District and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶10

5. Grant or refusal of interim order is covered by three well established principles, namely, (1) prima facie case (2) balance of convenience in his favour and (3) irreparable injury. From the Notification itself, it is clear that the Rule of reservation is applicable as per General Rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. But, admittedly, Rule 22 has not been amended so as to include reserving 2% of seats for the meritorious sports persons. Therefore, the interim prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted as it is clearly contrary to the notification issued calling for the applications. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶13

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 21.03.2014 AMD

¶14

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

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.8572 OF 2014

¶16

DATE: 21.03.2014

¶17

AMD

G. Soundarya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Soundarya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Union of India Vs E.Krishna Rao

The General Manager, Vs Shaik Gaffar

Programme Staff Association of Air and Doordarshan Vs E.Kriashna Rao

T. Narasimha Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Jeedi Dasthagiraiah , Medari Dastagiraiah, Vs Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

The Union of India, Vs B.N.Singh S/o. Brahmadeo Singh