Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to reinstate her after a selected candidate relinquished the post. The High Court held that the representation should be considered first.
Order directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2019 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.24522 OF 2019
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an order or direction one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not issuing Revised Cum 3rd Notification, for the post of Processing Supervisor, in pursuance of the relinquishment letter dated 30.10.2019 submitted by the candidate with Hall Ticket Number 222300000019 for the post of Processing Supervisor and considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 01.11.2019 is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also against the Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations. Consequently direct respondent No.2 to issue Revised cum 3rd Notification of selection notification in pursuance of the relinquishment letter dated 30.10.2019 submitted by the candidate with Hall Ticket Number 222300000019 and considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 01.11.2019 thereby select the petitioner for the post of Processing Supervisor, who stood in the merit, immediate to the relinquished candidate and to pass such other order or orders.”
Heard learned counsel on either side.
Pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents,
the petitioner applied for the post of Processing Supervisor, participated in the regular selection process and fared well. The grievance of the petitioner is that one candidate, who was
2
selected for the post of Processing Supervisor, had relinquished her post and to that effect, she submitted a letter dated 30.10.2019 to the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner is the next meritorious candidate, she submitted a representation to the respondents on 01.11.2019 requesting the respondents to consider her case for appointment to the post of Processing Supervisor. But, so far, no orders have been passed by the respondents.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 01.11.2019 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that since the representation dated 01.11.2019 submitted by the petitioner is pending with the respondents, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 01.11.2019 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a
3
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any shall stand
closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Date: 20.11.2019 rkk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents should consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2019 for appointment as Processing Supervisor before the writ petition is disposed of.
Petitioner (Candidate)
Respondent No.2 (Telangana State Public Service Commission)
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
