Allowed

Geetha Naik Vislavath v. The Osmania University Hyderabad

Telangana HC12 Apr 2016WP/22970/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging arbitrary withholding of interview result for Assistant Professor post. Court distinguished a prior direction regarding the filling of a vacancy from withholding result. Ordered declaration of result within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to declare the interview result for the post of Assistant Professor within one month of receiving a copy of this order.

Geetha Naik Vislavath Vs The Osmania… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY W.P.No. 22970 OF 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the inaction of the 1^st respondent as arbitrary in withholding the result of interview held on 03-04-2013 for the post of Assistant Professor (SC/ST Backlogs) in Public Administration Department of Osmania University.

¶4

The 1^st respondent issued notification dated 09-09-2010 calling for applications to fill-up the vacancies (SC/ST Backlogs) in various departments like Education, Law, English and Public Administration besides English, Islamic Studies, Psychology and Urdu etc.,. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Public Administration under reserved category belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was called for an interview and, accordingly, attended the interview on 03-04-2013 but the result was not declared till today without assigning any reason.

¶5

The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that on account of direction given by this Court in W.P.M.P.No. 1503 of 2007 in W.P.No. 1176 of 2007, the respondents could not declare the result.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court to the notification dated 09-09-2010, wherein it is specifically stated that the candidates, who had applied earlier in response to the Advertisement No. 3/2009 (Unfilled vacancies vide Adv.No. 1/2006) dated 28-02-2009 and its Re-notification dated 17-06-2010 and 5/2010 dated 09-09-2010, need not apply again if they fulfill the requisite qualifications as per the present notification. The present vacancy notified in notification dated 09-09-2010 in the department of Public Administration is meant for S.T. candidates exclusively whereas the 1^st respondent notified 4 vacancies in the earlier notification, out of which two were meant for O.C. (1 W), BC-B-1 and S.T.-1. The same post was notified again under the backlog vacancies. However,

¶7

the direction in W.P.M.P.No. 1503 of 2007 in W.P.No. 1176 of 2007 is only a direction not to fill-up one post of Assistant Professor in the department of Public Administration until further orders. There is no direction against the respondents to withhold the result of the interview. Therefore, there is no justification in withholding the result of the interview held on 03-04-2013, for a long period of three years almost, keeping the candidates totally in dark.

¶8

Taking into consideration lapse of time from the date of the interview till this date and the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No. 1503 of 2007 in W.P.No. 1176 of 2007, the 1^st respondent is directed to declare the result of the interview held on 03-04-2013 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Public Administration within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the petitioner is permitted to furnish a copy to the 1^st respondent under proper acknowledgement.

¶9

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.

¶10

Date: 12^th April, 2016. M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

¶11

JSK

Geetha Naik Vislavath v. The Osmania University Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha Naik Vislavath v. The Osmania University Hyderabad

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

M/s. Kohinoor Steel (Pvt) Ltd., Vs The State of A.P.

Pusuluri Ramaiah, Vs The Agent to the Government

Kandavarapu Guravamma Vs Nakka Rajeshwar , Pedda Rajeshwar

Smt.T.Catherin Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sudhakar, Vs The General Manager

K. Raja Rao, Vs Baligam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society