High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by police inspectors seeking promotion due to seniority list grievances as infructuous. The petition was transferred from Andhra Pradesh.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. No costs awarded.
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
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T,VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION TRANSFER ED NO: 78 OF 2017
Between:
..PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under A(icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to prepare the seniority list of lnspectors of Police (Civil) working in Hyderabad City in accordance with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 20'10-1-SCC-L&S-28 by treating Hyderabad City as a separate unit of appointment for all purposes till 12-08-20'1'l on which date Paragraph 14 (f) of the Presidential Order was omitted by taking into account the Areas which fall under Hyderabad City as per First Schedule of the Presidential Order and hold that the Applicants are entitled to be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the 3rd Respondent in preparing and communicating the provisional seniority list of lnspectors of Police (Civil) of Hyderabad City vide Memo. No. L&O1E217931201'1 dated 11-08-2011 in continuation of the seniority list communicated vide G.O. tr,4s. No. 361 Home (Services-l) Department dated 19-12-2003 and communicating the rejection vide Memo No.L&O/E2I90212012 dated nilO2-2013 as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned judgment, in contravention of Paragraph 1 g) of the Presidential Order as it stood prior to 12-092011 and in violation of Articles 14 and'!6 of the Constitution of lndia.
Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI. MR. RAVICHANDRAN .V.
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLESRI ]USTICE T. VINOD KUMAIT
7
ORDER:
Sri BharathShah, learned counsel representingSri V'Flavichandran' learned counselfor the petitioners, submits that the cause i:l the present vrritpetition doesnot survive for consideration by this court and thus' the Writ Petitionhasbecome infructuous'
3 Miscellaneouspetitions,if any,pending in this writ petitionshall
stand closed.No orderas to costs'
S D/-K.VENKAIAH ASS STANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// d,
SECTION OFFICER
To, 1 . One CCto Sri. Ravichandran V Advocate[OPUC] -
1 . Two CCs toGP for nor" iSu' j ,ff ign Court for the State cf Telangana [OUT] J. Two CDCoPies. 4. One SPareCoPY. PM \ .}*
HIGH COURT
DATED:2310712021
ORDER
WP(TR).No.78 ot 2017
AT E o
<
c
)ao ,t$ N)$1$1I +
'll *
DES?
Dismissing the WP As infructuous Without costs.
6<br>
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives for consideration.
Whether the cause in the present writ petition is infructuous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jeyaram S/o Sri S.Anantha Reddy
J Narasiah S/o Sri J.Ramalingaiah
State of Andhra Pradesh
T. Vinod Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
