Dismissed

K. Haranadh v. The Inspector General

Telangana HC1 Nov 2018WA/371/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal challenges the dismissal of a miscellaneous petition seeking interim relief in a pending writ petition concerning eligibility for the post of Constable (RPF/RPSF) due to criminal involvement. The High Court affirmed the lower order, stating individual facts must be considered in the main petition rather than applying general principles.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

K. Haranadh Vs The Inspector General — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.371 OF 2018

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶4

The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.No.22298 of 2016, which is pending consideration on the file of this Court. He preferred this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.M.P.No.26717 filed by him in the said Writ Petition for interim relief, vide order dated 22.12.2017.

¶5

The issue is with regard to the eligibility of the appellantpetitioner to aspire for the post of Constable (RPSF/RPF) in the context of his involvement in a criminal case. By the order under appeal, the learned Judge opined that the prayer of the appellantpetitioner to consider his case for reinstatement could not be entertained at the interlocutory stage and dismissed the miscellaneous petition.

¶6

Smt.T.Bala Jayasree, learned counsel for the respondents, would inform this Court that in the light of Rules 52 and 68 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, and the Railway Standing Instructions No.88/SEC(E)/RC-3/6 (IR) (TRG) dated 16.11.2005, the appellant-petitioner is ineligible to be continued in the service of the Railways.

¶7

Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, would however contend that in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India¹ , it would be within the discretion of the authorities to

¶8

1 (2016) 8 SCC 471

¶9

¶10

consider the case of the appellant-petitioner on the lines indicated by the Supreme Court therein.

¶11

However, we are of the opinion that each case would have to turn upon its individual facts apart from the Rules applicable thereto and no generalization can be made to the effect that all such cases should be governed by the general principles laid down in Avtar Singh . This aspect of the matter would therefore have to be addressed in the main writ petition, which is still pending consideration.

¶12

On the above analysis, we see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge.

¶13

The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. We however make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case and all issues are left open to be considered in the Writ Petition.

¶14

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand

¶15

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶16

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶17

____________________ M. GANGA RAO, J

¶18

1^st November, 2018 sur

K. Haranadh v. The Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Haranadh v. The Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Sri Yogitha Rana

K Radha Krishna Vs Dr. J. Yasmin (Incharge)

Dr.M.Rajasekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Mrudula Vs The Engineet-in-chief

Tecnimont India Private Limited. Tecnimont House Vs Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited

R.V. Arun Kumar, Vs Union of India