This judgment is a thin order whereby the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 as infructuous. No substantive legal proposition was articulated in the text provided.
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.
\
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdlction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITI oN NO. 60 69 0F 200s
Between:
Dr. S. Sandya U.G.C. (eq99rcl S_cientist, A Department of Economics, Vniversityof Hyderabad,48, W/o.L. Sridhardn,nsid'SA Veais, ruo. iil HfC, T.anashahnag_qi, HUDA Cotony, Sheikpet, tr,tanit<onoa noia, biirfl'pJJt, Hyderabad - 500 075.
AND
...PETITIONER
..,RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue a writ of order or direction more parricurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by caring for arr records of screening committee serection committee .1 .r etc" pertaining to the appointment to the post of Reader in Economics in Respondent University pursuant to its notification No. Recit-p -1r2oo4 dr.28_1_2004 and decrare that action of the '1'r respondent in arowing the 2nd and 3d respondent to the interview and consequentiar interviewing of the 2nd and 3d respondents and Respondent No' 2's appointment as Reader in Economics in Respondent No. 1 university as arbitrary, iregar, viorative of its own rures and regurations contrary to the Judgments of Apex courts reported in this regard, and violative of Ar1. 14, 21 of the constitution of rndia and set aside the same by further directing the respondents to decrare that petitioner dury serected for the post of reader in Economics and to pass such other order by them and may be preased to pass any such direction or directions order or orders as this Hon'bre court deems fit and proper necessary in the circumstances of these n ts order dt 27_1_2oo5ffii:i:";::ffilii:fi,:liTTl:f :iT 31787 0t 2oo4 by directing the respondents for submitting the records pertaining to these selection.
(Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated 16.1 1 .2006 in W.P.M.P.No.14954 of 2006.) Counsel for the petitioner: SRI N. VIJAy ffJ t'"lfi :1"" ff:?3,?1fi , ts,^",g3LAw F'RM
THE HON'BtE SRI JUSTICE AEHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.6069 of 2005
.-_
ORDER:
Leorned counsel oppeoring for lhe petilioner submils thot the
couse in the writ petiiion does nol survive for odjudicotion ond hos become inf ruciuous.
Accordingly, the Wril Petition is dismissed os infructuous. No
order os to cosls.
Pending miscelloneouspeiiiions, if ony,sholl stond closed'
SD/- V.SUDHA
\
ASSISTAN REGI R ,TRUE COPY// SE o OFFICE R
To, 1 . One CC to Sri N Vijay, Advocate [OPUC] 2. 5;; 66 i6H,l"it'inoi,-t'LawFirm,Advocat-e[oPUc] 3. Two CDCoPies. 4 One pare CoPY MP DDN "
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:06rcil2021
ORDER
WP.No.6069 of 2005
e 5 7€
17 sEP?0?1
6
*
\ -k DFSp..;
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
\tl \5q
Dr. S. Sandya
The University of Hyderabad
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
