Dismissed

Ponugupati Narayana v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Telangana HC26 Oct 2022WA/450/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenged dismissal of a writ petition alleging their degrees were ignored during recruitment for Junior Executive Trainee posts. Standing Counsel argued all posts were filled over a decade ago. The High Court dismissed the appeal without costs, refusing relief as the recruitment process was already completed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the Writ Appeal is dismissed without costs as the posts were already filled.

Ponugupati Narayana Vs The Singareni Collieries… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENry SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINANO KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 450 OF 2011

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order dated 13.06.201 1 in WPNo. 1399312011 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶9

Ponugupati Narayana, S/o. Pullaiah, aged about 44 yearc, Occ: Asst. Foreman Grade - C, (Employee Code No. 0468143), R/o. Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

¶10

B. Srinivas, S/o. Mondaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ: Asst. Foreman, Grade - C, (Employee Code No. 0996421), R/o. Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

¶11

P. Ralendra Prasad, S/o Venkatarajam, aged aboul 42 years, Occ: Asst. Foreman, Grade - C, (Employee Code No. 2356813) R/o. Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

¶12

J. Damodar Rao, S/o Raghavulu, aged about 44 years, Occ: Fitter, Grade - B, (Employee Code No. 1419692) R/o Ramagundam, Karimnagar District.

¶13

Kothapalli Brahmachary, S/o Shankaraiah, aged about 43 years, Occ: Asst. Foreman Grade - C, (Employee Code No. 2052833) R/o. Srirampur, Adilabad District.

¶14

Shaik Baji Saida, S/o Shaik Mastan, aged about 46^years, Occ: Asst. Foreman Grade - C, (Employee Code No. 2798162) R/o. Srirampur, Adilabad District.

¶15

A. Chennakeswara Rao, S/o. A. Chintaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ: Foreman Grade - B, (Employee Code No. 2047197) R/o. Sattupalli Khammam District.

¶16

B. R. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged about 42 years,Occ: Fitter Grade - C, (Employee Code No. 0495459) R/o. Bhoopalapally, Warangal District.

¶17

1. D. Surender, S/o. Mallaiah, aged about 28 years, Occ: Asst. Foreman Grade - C, (Employee Code No. 0122056) R/o. 8th lncline Colony, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

¶18

10.Mohd. Galib, S/o. Allisha, aged about 46 years, Occ: Asst. Foreman Grade - C, (Employee Code No. 0467927) R/o. Manuguru, Khammam District.

¶19

1. D. Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Rajalingu, aged about 39 years, Occ: Foreman Qlade^{- C, (EmployeeCode No. 2106975) Rl/o. Godavarikhani,Karimnagar} District.

¶20

12.M. Suryanarayana Murthy, S/o. M. Sundera Rao, aged about 48 years, Occ: Fitter Grade - C, (Employee Code No. 2763256) R/o. Srirampur, Adilabad District.

¶21

'l 3. Thoutam Ramesh, S/o. Narsaiah, aged about 45 years, Occ: Fitter Grade - C, (Employee Code No. 2551421) R/o. Godavari Khani, Karimnagar District.

¶22

14 R.J. Kennady S/o. R. John, aged about 41 years, Occ Coal Filler (Employee Code No 236'791) R/o. Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

¶23

Sairi Sambaia r, S/o. Pedda Mallaiah, aged about 43 years, Occ: Electrician (Employee Co le No. 1417527) R/o. Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. (Petitioners t o l, 3 to 7, 9, 12 to 15 in WPNo.13993 of 2011 are not

¶24

necessary paries to this Writ Appeal, Hence not ntade them as^parties in this writAppeal )

¶25

...A,'ELLANTS/'ET,,.NERS

¶26

AND

¶27

1 The Singareni^f lollieries Company Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Singareni Bhav rni, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶28

2 The Director, (t A & W) Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem, Khammam Dist^'ict.

¶29

2 The General Mrrnager, (Personnel), Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Recruitment Ce l, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶30

4 University Granrs Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-1 10 002

¶31

5 All lndia Counci for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chander Lok Building, Janpath, New D :lhi-1 10 001

¶32

6 lndira Gandhi N ational Open University, Distance Education Council, Maidan Garhi, New Dell- -110 068, Rep. by its Secretary. (RR - 4 to 6 are npleaded as per the Court's order dated 06-02-2012 in wAMP No' 2422 of 2011\

¶33

...RES'.NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS

¶34

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WAMP. NO: 989 OF 2011)

¶35

Petition under S:ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in ;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent,; to permit the petitioners / appellants herein to the interview for promotion to the posts of Junior Executive Trainee, which is going to be held on 28th / 2'9th June, 2011 or any other subsequent date, pending disposal of the above w-it appeal.

¶36

Counsel for the Appelk nts: SRI K. VASUDEVA REDDY

¶37

Counsel for the Respor dent Nos.1 to 3: SRI NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO, SC

¶38

FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES

¶39

Counsel for the RespondentNos.4&S: SRI K. RAMAKANTH REDDY Counsel for the ResponlentNo.6: --

¶40

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶41

¶42

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶43

Writ Appeal No.45O of 2O11

¶44

JUDGMENT z (Per Hon'ble Justice'Abhinand Kumar Shauili)

¶45

This writ appeal is filed, aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2Oi1 passed in W.P.No.13993 of 2Ol1 by the learned Single Judge.

¶46

Heard Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the appellants are fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as Junior Executive Trainees. The respondents have issued recrrritment notification on O4.O8.2O|O and in pursuance of the said notification, the appellants have applied. However, when the respondents have not considered the cases of the appellants on the ground that the Degree Certificates obtained by the "Orjy" were not recognized by UGC/AICTE/DEC, they

¶48

¶49

¶50

have appro,r.ched this Court by fi1in51 W.P.No.i3993 of 2Oll. Learn:d Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition on 3.06.201,1 without appreciating the fact that the Degrees recured by the appellants ar:e very much valid and they are recognized by AICTE. Therefore, appropriate orders be^pa;sed in the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed iry the learned Single Judge.

¶51

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents had informed this Court that all the posts, which were notified in pursuance of the notification^dated 04.08.2010^we re filled^{up, and hence,at this point of time'} no relief can^{be granted in favour of ttre appellants as} recruitment^{process has already been over almost a decade} back.

¶52

5.^{This Court, having consideredthe rival submisiions,} made by^{the palties,is of the consideredview that no relief} can be^{grantedn this writ appeal as the posts whichwere} notified^{were already filled up' Hence' this Court is not} inclined to^{interferewith the orderpassed by the learned} Single Judge.

¶53

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, sha-ll stand closed.

¶55

¶56

SD/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPU&ilrEGtsrRAR //TRUE COPY// I SECTTON OFFICER

¶57

To,
I 9n" CC to SRt K V{glp.qVAREDDy Advocate [OpUC]
2. one cc to sRr NANDTGAM xntsHrvn nAol6ti6i brngireni coilieries
loPUcI
3. One CC to SRt K. RAMAKANTH REDDy Advocate [OpUC]
4. Two CD Cooies
KKS
GJP
Bsa

HIGH COUF T

DATED:2611012022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.450 of 2011

z6'"-;:ffiq
:)e. t $$' 1$n
,')
.), 't .

¶63

DISMISSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COS] S

¶64

0t^ltz- $sc

Ponugupati Narayana v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponugupati Narayana v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Narsimhulu, Medak Dist. Vs the High Court of A.P. Hyd. and Another

J.Ashok Kumar, Hyd. Vs Syed Walliullah, Hyd and 6 Others

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs J. Ramulu

The Chairman and Managing Director, Vs The Presiding Officer

The State of a.P., Tribal Welfare Dept., Hyd and 3 Othrs Vs Nakka Vijay Babu, Khm Dist. and Ano

The General Manager (Personnel) Vs The Presiding Officer