Disposed

Kurmeti Sandhya v. The Telangana State Public Service Commission

Telangana HC8 Apr 2021WP/5066/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission. The Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation submitted on 24-11-2020 regarding her candidacy for a Staff Nurse post and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2020 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Kurmeti Sandhya Vs The Telangana State Public… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Speciat Original J urisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶8

Between:

¶9

WRIT P ETITI N NO: 66 0F 21

¶10

Kurmetr Sandhva. D/o K., Narsjmha. 1i9ed about 32 years, Occ. private Employee, Rt o.i 2-246 t 1 t, s. iva;i Nagai, D;ra,", i;il;, Natgonda District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

l The Telangana state pubric service commission, Hyderabad, represented

¶14

By its Secretaryits SecretarySecretary

¶15

By its Secretaryits SecretarySecretary 2 state. of.Tera n ja na, represented by its principar secretary to Government,

¶16

_^{Health, Medical and Family} Welfari: Oepartnient. Secreta'riai H;;;;i;;",

¶17

state of reransana, represented nv its Fiincipai'b;;;;iiry't,;'GliJ,i,:,.'#Eit,

¶18

Generat Administratiori Departmeni, SecretiiiJi. nyoeradaJ

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High corrt ,Ly "0"-pteaseo to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandimus oecrariig th6 alt]on or staff the 1st respondent in not considering Nurse pursuant to Notification the No. candidature of s7l2oi7 dateo the b-1t-zotz petitioner ior^-unJer-ac_c i-ne -po.t or community, while considering the less meritorious candidate tor ttre saio poii without any justification or reasonable cause on the ground that the petitioner couid not utilize the Edit option given by the respondents ev6n though the same courd not bo uiirized due to server problem and immediately :brought thi same to the notice of the 1st respondent along with caste certificate is as illegal, arbitrary, oiscriminatoiy- ano violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of lndia, ,no .on."qr"nirv r,oro that the petitioner is entitled for selection and appointment to the post of staff ilurse pursuant to Notification No. s7l20il , dated B-1 i-2017 according to her merit in the selection process under BC-c community with all consequential benefits.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner for verification of the certificates including caste cefiificate along with other candidates to be held lrom 2s-2-2021 onwards and consider her case for selection and appointment to the post of Staff Nurse pursuant to Notification No.5712017 under BC-C quota, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. P. NARASIMHA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI D. BALA KTSHAN RAO, SC FOR TSPSC Counsel for the Respondent No.2: cP FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH FAMILy WELFARE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: cP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICE ABHINANDKUMAR SHAYILI} WRIT PETITION^{No.5066 of202l}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ^{petition is being disposed of at the stage of adn.rission} with the consent^{of both} Parties.

¶30

This writ^{petition is filed seekingthe following relief:}

¶31

"...to issue^{a writ, orderor direction morein the nature} oi Mundamus^{declaring the action of the l't respondent} in not considering^{the candidature of the petitionerfor} the post of^{StaffNursepursuantto Notification} No.SZZZO1Z dated^{8.11.2017under BC-CCommunity,} while considering^{the less meritorious candidate for the} said post without^{any justilication or reasonablecause} on the ground that^{the petitionercould not utilizethe} Edit Option^{givenby the respondentseven though the} same could not^{be utilizeddue to server problemand} immediately brought^{the sameto the noticeof the 1"} respondent along with^{caste certificateas illegal,} arbitrary, discriminatory^{and violativeolArticles14, 16} and 2i of the Constitution^{ol india,and consequently} hold that the^petitioner is^{entitledlbr selectionand} appointment to the^{post ol StaffNurse pursuantto} Notification No.57l2017 dated^{08.1 1.2017accordingto} her merit in the selection^{process under BC-C} community with all consequential benefits^{and pass} such other order or orders may deem flt^{and proper in} the circumstances ol'the^{case. "}

¶32

Heard leamed counsel for the^parties.

¶33

It has been contended by the petitioner that she is fully^eligible and qualified to be appointed as a Stafl Nurse and the respondents have issued notification dated 08.11.2017 inviting applications to the post of Staff Nurse. The petitioner furlher contended that she has responded to the said notification and she has faired decently well in the selections. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she has secured decent merit, the respor-rdents are not considering her case for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse. In those sgt of circumstances.

¶34

the petitioner^{has submitted a detailed representationto the} respondents^{on24.l1,z)z),but so far no ordersare passedthereon'}

¶35

Therefbre,^{counsellor the petitionercontended that appropriate} orders be^{passed in the writ petitiondirectingthe respondents to} consider^{the representation submittedby the petitioner on 24'11'2020} and pass appropriate^{orders in accordancewith law'}

¶36

Standing^{Counsel appearing for respondentNo' t had contended} pending with^the that since the^{petitioner'srepresentationis} respondents,^{the respondentswould considerthe same and pass} appropriate^{orders in accordancewith law'}

¶37

This Court,^{havingconsideredthe rival submissions madeby} leamed counsel^{for respective parties,is of the consideredview that} this writ^{petition can be disposedof directing the l't lespondent to} consider the^{representation submittedby the petitioneron24J1'2020} and pass^{appropriateorders, in accordancewith law' within a} reasonable^{period of time, preferablywithineight weeks flomthe date} ofreceipt^{ofa coPY ofthis order'}

¶38

Withtheaboveobser.vations,thewritpetitionisdisposedof.

¶39

No order^{as to costs.}

¶40

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions' if any' shallstand closed'}

SD/-I.NAGALAKSHMI

ASSISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO N OFFICER

To, 1. The Secretary, Telangana State^{PublicService Commission,Hyderabad.} 2. The Principal-Secretary to^{Government, Health, Medical.and FamilyWelfare} Department, State of Telangana,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad}

¶46

The Principal Secretary^{to Government,GeneralAdministrationDepartment,} State of Telangana,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad}

¶47

One CC to Sri P. Narasimha,^Advocate [OPUCI

¶48

One CC to Sri D. Bala^{Kishan Rao, SC for TSPSC, Advocate} IOPUCI

¶49

Two CCs to GP^{for lr/edical and Health Family welfare, Highcourt for the state} of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶50

Two CC; to GP^foi- General^{Admiriistration,High Courtfor the Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶51

Two CD Copies

SlTI

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/04/2021

1 s sT..l
-) I
,1
lio t6 4m2021
I
\i-,. ':.,,
-i
.-
'.rf!'

¶57

ORDER

¶58

WP.No.5066^{ol 2021}

¶59

DISPOSING OF^THEWP WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

o /,'
u\ry

Kurmeti Sandhya v. The Telangana State Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurmeti Sandhya v. The Telangana State Public Service Commission

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

Sri. R. Kalyan Chakravarthy Vs The State of Telangana

Chennupati Subba Rao, Vs The Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.

T. Devender Vs The State of Telangana

Miriyala Mariyamma and 2 others Vs Miriyala Subhadra and 2 opthers

Smt. P.Priyamvadha Vs The Union of India, And 4 Others

Jadhav Chima Nayak Vs Union of India