Dismissed

J.Ramesh S/o. Late J.Kankaiah v. The High Court of Telangana And

Telangana HC25 Jan 2017WP/22798/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, appointed as Attender and posted as Cook, sought promotion to Record Assistant. Court dismissed petition noting petitioner’s frequent leaves and poor service record precluded mandatory promotion under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner’s application for promotion was dismissed; future consideration allowed if performance improves.

J.Ramesh S/o. Late J.Kankaiah Vs The High Court of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶2

Writ Petition No.22798 of 2016

¶3

Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)

¶4

Aggrieved by the non-grant of promotion to the post of Record Assistant, a person who was appointed as Attender and who is now working as Cook, has come up with the present writ petition.

¶5

Heard Mr. M.Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.Ravi Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court.

¶6

The petitioner was appointed on 09-10-2001 as an Attender, on compassionate grounds, consequent upon the death of his father in harness. It appears that he was posted as a Cook in the residence of a Judicial Officer in the year 2008. It appears that ever since then, the petitioner has gone on leave on several occasions, on the ground that his posting as a Cook was in violation of the Rules and also on the ground that he did not know cooking.

¶7

As a result of his record of service from 2008, the petitioner’s case was not taken for promotion to the post of Record Assistant. Therefore, contending that his juniors have been promoted and he was deprived of promotion, the petitioner is before us.

¶8

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the petitioner has been repeatedly going on leave and that his work was not satisfactory.

¶9

¶10

The 2^nd respondent has also claimed that the petitioner is habituated to send anonymous letters making allegations against the Presiding Officer.

¶11

In view of the said stand, it may not be possible for this Court to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Record Assistant. At least the fact that the petitioner has been going on leave frequently, is not disputed before us. Therefore, no positive mandamus can be issued.

¶12

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it will not be a bar for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in future, if his performance improves. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶13

petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶14

___________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶15

25^th January, 2017. Ak

¶16

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND

¶18

HON’BLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶19

Writ Petition No.22798 of 2016

¶20

(per VRS, J.)

¶21

25^th January, 2017. (Ak)

J.Ramesh S/o. Late J.Kankaiah v. The High Court of Telangana And

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Ramesh S/o. Late J.Kankaiah v. The High Court of Telangana And

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

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Vs Shri B v Subba Reddy

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Suryavanshi Finance and Investments P. Ltd.

M/s. Sree Veera Brahmendra Swamy Spinning Mills Private Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer Chilakaluripet Guntur District

Commissioner of I.T. Act Vs MOhd. Ataullah

M/s. Feno Plast Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

Ramanjaneya Vara Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh