Disposed

Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. M.Uma Devi

Telangana HC22 Jan 2014WP/910/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged observations made by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal regarding recruitment rules for the District Secondary Certificate exam of 2000. The High Court declined to adjudicate merits, dismissing the petition without orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed with no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs M.Uma Devi — Telangana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.910 of 2002

¶3

ORDER (per RSR,J):

¶4

This writ petition is filed by the respondents in O.A.No.8522 of 2000 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2001. The aforesaid O.A is filed by the respondent herein for the following reliefs:

¶5

(a) to call for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.72, Education (Ser.VI) Department, dated 03.07.2000 and set aside the second limb of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Rules issued in the said G.O and consequently, direct the respondents to make a provision for waiting list, by holding the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional.

¶6

(b) to call for the records relating to the select list of the D.S.C 2000 of Mahabubnagar District and direct the respondents to include the name of the applicant in the select list of D.S.C 2000 and issue appointment orders to the applicant, by holding the action of the respondents in deleting the name of the applicant from the select list as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and subversive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

¶7

Though the reliefs sought by the respondentapplicant were not granted, certain observations were made by the Tribunal while disposing of the O.A, against which, the petitioners are aggrieved.

¶8

The Rule, which was subject matter of challenge

¶9

before the Tribunal, relates to the recruitment of teachers in 2000 through D.S.C. Subsequently, recruitment was made to the posts of teachers in D.S.C 2005, 2008 and 2012 and every time, separate set of Rules were framed for selection. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the matter to declare the observations made by the Tribunal with regard to the Rule framed in D.S.C 2000 at this stage, as illegal.

¶10

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications if any shall also stand disposed of.

¶11

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶12

A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶13

Date: 22.01.2014 va

¶14

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.910 of 2002

¶16

(Order of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subash Reddy)

¶17

Date: 22.01.2014

¶18

Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. M.Uma Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. M.Uma Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I.Veerabrahmam Vs The District Tribal Welfare Officer

V. Pullaiah Vs The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare

N.Giridhar S/o Dasthagiri, Vs The Registrar

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs N. Krishna, Arhc 1008

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Vs Shaik Raharnad

The Director General of Police, Vs P.Damodararao PC-335