Dismissed

B.Rangaswamy v. J.Venkataramudu

Telangana HC6 Oct 2015WA/900/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal against an interim order imposing a status quo regarding the appointment of Government Pleaders. The Court declined to interfere with the lower court's order, instructing the judge to expedite the pending vacate petition.

What did the court decide?

Interim order maintaining status quo regarding appointments; vacate petition to be considered by the lower court.

B.Rangaswamy Vs J.Venkataramudu — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

WRIT APPEAL No. 900 OF 2015

06-10-2015

Between:

B. Rangaswamy

… Appellant

And

J. Venkataramudu and others

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶13

AND

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶15

WRIT APPEAL No. 900 OF 2015

¶16

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

In the instant appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 25-08-2015 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 27098 of 2015 which reads thus:

¶19

“Learned Government Pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs takes notice for respondent No.1. Sri V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of R2 and R3.

¶20

Issue notice to respondent No.4.

¶21

Post after two (2) weeks in ‘Motion List’.

¶22

In the meanwhile, there shall be status quo with regard to appointment of Asst. Government Pleader for the Senior and Junior Civil Judges’ Courts, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.”

¶23

We are informed that the appellant has already filed a vacate petition. Our attention was also invited to the order dated

¶24

20-09-2015 passed by the Collector on the basis of the order passed by learned single Judge, to submit that the authorities below misunderstood the order passed by learned single Judge. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order on this ground. It is always open to the appellant to bring it to the notice of the learned Judge who is seized of the matter and we are sure and confident that the learned single Judge would consider the appellant’s vacate petition in proper perspective.

¶25

The appeal is dismissed with a request to learned single Judge to consider and decide the appellant’s vacate petition expeditiously.

¶26

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶27

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶28

S.V. BHATT, J

¶29

06-10-2015

¶30

B.Rangaswamy v. J.Venkataramudu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Rangaswamy v. J.Venkataramudu

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

Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Correspondent of M/s. Sri Raja Vs Regional Transport Officer

K.Venkateswara Rao (Bhimavaram Co-op urban bank)Secretary Vs Executive Director of RBI Central Office

S.sumalata Vs Dy.Generaal Manager

M/s.Merlon Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Krishna Constructions

P. Satyavathi, Vs Dr. G.Kanakaraju

ChandaLingaiah Dora S/o Sammayya Vs The State of Telangana