Disposed

Ch.Kanthaiah v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC10 Jan 2020WP/981/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandatory relief for appointment as Home Guard. Due to a pending representation dated 25.09.2019, the Court was satisfied as to neither party. It directed the respondents to consider the latest representation and pass orders within eight weeks without any interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider the pending representation dated 25.09.2019 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Ch.Kanthaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.981 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declare the action of the 3^rd respondent in not disposing of the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 20/ 09/ 2004, 12/ 12/ 2004, 06/ 07/ 2015, 01/ 02/ 2015, 02/ 03/ 2016 and 01/ 11/ 2016 including representation dated 25/ 09/ 2019 for admitting him into duties as Home Guard is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional with a consequential direction to the 3^rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as Home Guard by disposing of his representations dated 20/ 09/ 2004, 12/ 12/ 2004, 06/ 07/ 2015, 01/ 02/ 2015, 02/ 03/ 2016, 01/ 11/ 2016 including representation dated 25/ 09/ 2019 …..” .

¶7

Heard Mr.A.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶8

the Special Government Pleader for respondents.

¶9

It has been contended by the petitioner that he was selected and appointed to the post of Home Guard vide proceedings dated 07.01.2004. However, for the reasons best known to the respondents, they have not permitted him to join duty, pursuant to the appointment order dated 07.01.2004. The petitioner submits that he has been making a series of representations to the respondents and the latest representation is dated 25.09.2019 requesting to permit him to join duty. But, so far, the respondents have not passed any orders on the said representations nor permitted him to join duty.

¶10

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the latest representation submitted by the petitioner on 25.09.2019 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶12

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contends that since the representation of the petitioner is pending, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶13

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 respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 25.09.2019 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.

¶14

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶15

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

¶17

Date: 10-01-2020 Prv

¶18

Ch.Kanthaiah v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Kanthaiah v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

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

B. Varalaxmi Vs The State of Telangana And 2 Others

Nemmadi Satheesh Vs State of Telangana and Another

N. Siva Shankar Reddy And Another Vs The State of Telagnana And Another

Smt.Mandula Rama, And 9 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And 4 Others

Sollangi Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Eslavath Hunanaik Vs The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited