Disposed

Nemmadi Satheesh v. State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC9 Jan 2020WP/583/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to appoint him to Police Constable post under Home Guard quota. Petitioner filed representations seeking consideration after being excluded from selection. Court disposed of petition by directing respondents to consider pending representations and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner’s representations submitted on 22.10.2019 and 28.11.2019 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Nemmadi Satheesh Vs State of Telangana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.583 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :-

¶6

“ .…..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in not selecting the petitioner to the post of Stipendary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Mechanics) (Men) in Police Transport Organisation-Post Code No.35 under Notification No.Rc.No.90/ Rect./ Admn-1/ 2018 dated 31/ 05/ 2018 against 10 percent quota of the Home Guards in Telangana State as per Clause 18A of the recruitment notification Rc.No.90/ Rect/ Admn-I/ 2018 dated 31/ 05/ 2018 issued by the 2^nd Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as such without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 2^nd Respondent to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Stipendary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Mechanics) (Men) in Police Transport Organisation Post Code No.35 under Notification No.Rc.No.90/ Rect./ Admn-1/ 2018 dated 31/ 05/ 2018 against the 10 percent quota of the Home Guards in Telangana State with all consequential benefits and reliefs …..” .

¶7

Heard Mr.S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶8

and Sri M.V.Rama Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶9

It has been contended by the petitioner that he is working as a Home Guard and he is fully qualified and eligible to be appointed to the post of Police Constable. The respondents have issued Notification on 31.05.2018 for filling up the post of Police Constable by earmarking 10% of the posts for Home Guards. The petitioner

¶10

¶11

submits that he has responded to the said Notification and fared decently well in the selection process. However, the respondents have not selected any of the Home Guards in respect of the quota meant for Home Guards. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents and the respondents issued a clarification stating that the case of the petitioner would be considered and the petitioner was asked to submit certain documents for appointment as Police Constable under Home Guards quota. The petitioner has immediately submitted requisite information as sought by the respondents vide representations dated 22.10.2019 and 28.11.2019. But, so far, the respondents have not passed any orders on the said representations nor considered the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Police Constable.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 22.10.2019 and 28.11.2019 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that since the representations of the petitioner are pending, the respondents would consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the clarification issued by the respondents and would pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶14

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the

¶15

¶16

respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 22.10.2019 and 28.11.2019 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

No order as to costs.

¶19

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 09-01-2020 Prv

¶21

Nemmadi Satheesh v. State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nemmadi Satheesh v. State of Telangana and Another

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

Thati Sirisha Vs The Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited and 3 others

Daram Satyanarayana and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

K.Subhas Chandar Reddy Vs State of Telangana and another

Amaroju Madhu Vs a.P.Grameena Vikas Bank

Thouaii Satyanarayana , Sagar Vs a.P.Grameena Vikas Bank

Kubya Kethavath Vs The A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd., ( Apgenco )