Dismissed

Golconda Grameena Bank v. Golconda Grameena Bank

Telangana HC11 Feb 2016WP/3689/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the validity of specific RRB appointment rules and a selection Circular. Having learned that the selection process completed under the impugned Circular and appointments were made, the court noted the petitioner did not press the challenge and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to raise the same challenge to the rule.

Golconda Grameena Bank Vs Golconda… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶3

Writ Petition No.3689 of 2003

¶4

Date:11.2.2016

¶5

Between: Golconda Grameena Bank, SC/ST Employees Welfare Association, Represented by its General Secretary, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad.

¶6

…..Petitioner And Golconda Grameena Bank, Hyderabad and another.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶9

Writ Petition No.3689 of 2003

¶10

ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

Petitioner-association, in the instant writ petition, seeks the following payer:

¶13

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus holding that the Rules of Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other employees) Rules, 1998, Rule No.3(B)(J) pertaining to conduct of written test as illegal and unconstitutional and set aside the same and consequently holding that the Circular No. PER/26/2002-03, Dt. 18-2-2003 as illegal and unconstitutional and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶14

It is not in dispute that interim order granted was modified and in view thereof, selection process, which was commenced by issuing Circular dated 18.2.2003, impugned in the present writ petition, was completed and appointments were also made.

¶15

In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this writ petition and seeks liberty to the petitioner-Association to raise similar challenge to Rule No. 3(B)(J) of Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other employees) Rules, 1998.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of as not pressed with liberty as

¶17

prayed.

¶18

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand

¶19

closed. No costs.

¶20

____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶21

_________________ S.V. BHATT, J 11^th February, 2016