Disposed

Chinya Keloth, Nizamabad Dist v. the Govt. of a.P., Hyd and Another

Telangana HC21 Apr 2022WP/15184/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to the respondent to permit the petitioner to appear for a Civil Judges (Junior Division) examination as the petitioner was already permitted to appear on account of an interim order. The petition was held to be infructuous with liberty to file a fresh petition in the future.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of as infructuous with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition in future.

Chinya Keloth, Nizamabad Dist Vs the Govt. of a.P… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

wRlT PETITION NO: 15184 OF 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Chinya Keloth, S/o. Lalu Naik, aged^{30 yrs,. Occ: Jr. AssistantcumTypist(on} contract basis) At Vll Addl. District^{Judge(FTC), F/o Bodhan,Nizamabad} Dist.

¶8

FL/o. Pupallapally Thanda,^{Post Madhanpally, Jakranpally Mandal, Nizamabad} Dist

¶9

...PETrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Government of A.P Rep.^{by Principal Secretary, Law Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Registrar^{(Recruitment), Hon'ble HighCourt of A'P., Hyderabad.}

¶13

..,RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction^{moreparticularly one in} the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring^{the action of respondent No. 2 rejecting} the application of^petitioner on^{improper ground is illegal, arbitrary and violative of} principles of natural^justice and violative of Art.^{14 & 21 of Constitutionof lndiaand} consequently direct the respondent^{No.2 to consider the application of petitioner} and permit the^petitioner to appear^{for examinationfor the post of Civil Judges} (Junior Division).

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2011^(WPMP. NO:18^{227 0F 20111}

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the respondent No.2 to^permit the^{petitioner to appear for the screening} examination for the^post of civil^{Judge(Junior Division) held on 26.06.201'1during} the pendency of writ^petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. M ACHUTA^REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.^{2: SSRI.Y RAMA RAO, SC FORHC}

¶19

The Court delivered the following:

¶20

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SATISHCHANDRA SI1ARMA}

¶21

AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMARSHAi/ILI}

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.15184^{OF 2O11}

¶24

ORDER: Per the Hon'ble the^{Chief Justice SatishChandraSharma)}

¶25

The present lwit petition^{has becomeinfructuous, as}

¶26

the petitioner was permitted^{to appear in the examination}

¶27

on account of the interim^order.

¶28

Therefore, the writ^{petition isdisposed ofas} infructuous with a liberty^{to lile a fresh writ petition,in}

¶29

case need so arises in future.

¶30

The miscellaneous applications^{pending, if any, shall}

¶31

stand closed. There shall^{be no orderas to costs.}

¶32

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEC/,&t!. FFICER

To,

The Principal^{Secretary, Law Department'State of Telangana Secretariat'} Hvderabad.

¶37

2 i#"R;;;ira,^{(Recruitment), Hon'ble High Court of Telangana'} Hvderabad.

¶38

3 iji,""cC t"^{s ri.rt r. Ach uta Reddv,Ad vocatg} !9.PJ^cr 4 o;; CC^{io sti.v. Rama Rao, SC for HC [oPUc]}

¶39

5 Two CD^CoPies.

¶40

6 One SPare^CoPY

PN/

""q

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110412022

\ rl s r4
)
.Nt<br>0 5 ,ii{ z0z2

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

WP.No.15184 ol 2011

¶49

Disposing of the WP Without costs.

¶50

@r'oqd"t$'

Chinya Keloth, Nizamabad Dist v. the Govt. of a.P., Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinya Keloth, Nizamabad Dist v. the Govt. of a.P., Hyd and Another

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

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Tsrtc) and 2 Others Vs Sri Malothu Nehru

Ammula Kamala Deepti Vs The State of Telangana

Prof.Dastageer Alam Vs The Registrar

M/s. Haricons Engineers and Contractors Vs Sri. Gurijala Sudhakar Reddy

D.M., Tsrtc Vs Gollamandala Subba Raju and Ano.

Dr.M.Ravikanth Vs The State of Telangana