Allowed

S. Harsih v. The Union of India

Telangana HC7 Aug 2017WP/24811/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Supreme Court allowed a Deputy Collector's request to consider his manual application for allocation between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The Court held that considering the application would cause no harm and no reason existed to deny the petitioner's request.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's manual application for option allocation along with other officers' options.

S. Harsih Vs The Union of India — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE GUDI SEVA SHYAM PRASAD

¶4

WRI T PETI TI ON No.24811 of 2017

07.08.2017

Between:

S.Harish

..Petitioner

and

The Union of India, represented by its Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and Training, New Delhi and others

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.V.Krishnaiah Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader (AP) The Court made the following:

¶13

¶14

CVNR,J & GSP,J W.P.No.24811 of 2017 07.08.2017

¶15

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶16

The petitioner herein, who is working as the Deputy Collector under Group-I Services, approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) with the apprehension that his manual application may not be considered as he could not send the online option for allocation to one of the two States after formation of the State of Telangana on account of the reasons beyond his control. The Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner’s O.A. on the ground that it was premature.

¶17

Today, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader (AP) appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner’s manual application, dated 14.07.2016, was forwarded by respondent No.4 to respondent No.2 and that in view of the orders passed by this Court, the allocations were put on hold. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, did not put-forth any reason as to why the petitioner’s manual application cannot be considered. As no harm would be caused in considering the petitioner’s manual application either to the two States or to any individual, we do not find any reason to not accept the petitioner’s request for consideration of his manual application for option.

¶18

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s manual application for option forwarded by respondent No.4 for allocation to one of the two States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh along with the options of other Officers.

¶19

As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.30745 of 2017 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

______________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶21

__________________________________ GUDI SEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J

¶22

07^th August, 2017 GHN

¶23

¶24

CVNR,J & GSP,J W.P.No.24811 of 2017 07.08.2017

S. Harsih v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Harsih v. The Union of India

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

Union of India Vs Parna Muniratnam Chetty

Smt. G. Lilly, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Narasimha Raju, Vs Yarabala Raju

J.Dhanalakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Anjaneyulu S/o. Mallaiah, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

A.Murali Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh