Dismissed

Sale Ravi, Khammam District v. the Commissioner , Dpet., F Ayush, and 3 Others

Telangana HC25 Apr 2023WP/20090/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an old writ petition filed in 2009 and decided in 2023, the Telangana High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a recruitment selection on the ground that allowing the impugned order would not serve any practical purpose as the petitioner was no longer within the age eligibility limits for the post.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sale Ravi, Khammam District Vs the Commissioner… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 20090 OF 2009

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sale Ravi, S/o.Sundaraiah, Aged 40^{years, Rl/o.PindiproluVillage'} Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam^District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The Commissioner Department of^{AYUSH, A.P., Hyderabad.}

¶13

The Regional Deputy Director^{(FAC), Departmentof AYUSH, H.No.2-5-906/1'} Velugu Old Building, Opp:Circuit Guest^{House Hanumakonda,-506001 ,} Warangal A.P.

¶14

The Selection Committee, SNOs^{Khammam dist, Under NRHM Scheme,} 2007-08 Zone V Khammam.

¶15

Mr.M.Venugopal, S/o.Subba Rao, H.No.9-1-37,^{Medical colony} Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction declaring the action of the^respondents in not selecting the Petitioner herein as SNO^{(Sweepercum NursingOrderly)'in} Khammam District Under NRHM Scheme^{2007-O8, ZONE-V as he is belonging} to SC General Community and^within the^{age exemption given by the 2nd} respondent and in selecting the^{4th respondent,in KhammamDistrictunder} NRHM Scheme 2007-08, Zone^-V though^is over^{aged and belonging to OC} Community, only on the Bround^{that he secured 7.5 marks in oral test and} consequently direct the r{spondent to select^{the petitioner by setting aside the} appointment of the 4th respondent as SNOⁱⁿ Khammam^{district underNRHI\I} scheme 2007^-OB Zone^{V .}

¶18

l.A.NO:1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO :26202 OF 2009)

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^may be^pleased to direct the respondents to select the^petitioner by setting aside^the appointment^of the 4th respondent as SNOs in Khammam district under^{NRHM scheme 2007-08} Zone V pending disposal of the writ^petition.

¶20

|.A.NO:1 OF 2011^(WPMP. NO: 25047 OF 20'|1⁾

¶21

Between:

¶22

Sale Ravi, S/o.Sundaraiah, Aged 40^years, Rl/o.Pindiprolu^Village, Thirumalaya^pa lem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

AND

¶25

The Commissioner Department of AYUSH, A.P., Hyderabad.

¶26

The Regional Deputy Director^(FAC), Department of AYUSH, H.No.2-5-906/1 , Velugu Old Building, Opp:Circuit Guest House Hanumakonda,-506001 , Warangal A.P.

¶27

The Selection Committee, SNOs Khammam dist, Under NRHM Scheme, 2007-08 Zone V Khammam.

¶28

Mr.M.Venugopal, S/o.Subba Rao, H.No.9-'l-37, Medical colony Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

Sk.Obedulla, S/o.Abdul Khader, aged 34^years, Occ:SNO, R/o.7-2-132, Rikab Bazar, Khammam.

¶31

Banoth Nageswara Rao, S/o.Hanuma, aged 34^years, Occ:SNO, FTo.Paleur Village, Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District.

¶32

.....PROPOSED RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶33

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 permit the petitioner to implead the proposed Respondents as Respondents 5 & 6 in WP No. 20090 of 2009 and as well as in WPlvlP's also.

¶34

I.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶35

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 permit the petitioner to file the following documents 1. Ahswer Sheets and 2. Selection list as additional documents in WP No.20090/2009 in the interest of justice.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.'lto 3:GP FOR MED HEALTH AND FAMILYWELFARE}

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI.P.V.RAMANA

¶39

The Court made the following ORDER

¶40

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶41

WRIT PETITION No.20090 of 2009

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner as Sweeper cum Nursing Orderly in Khammam District, under NRHM Scheme 2007-08, Zone-Y, as he is belonging to SC General Community and as he comes within the age exemption given by the respondent No.2 - Regional Deputy Director (FAC), Department of Ayush, Hanumankonda, Warangal, and in selecting the respondent No.4 though he is over-aged and belonging to OC Community and to direcl the respondent authorities to select the petitioner by setting aside the appointment of the respondent No.4, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as per the notification, the maximum age prescribed for the post of Compounder and Sweeper-cum-Nursing Orderly, as on 01.04.2008, should be between l8-34 years for O.C. Candidates and for B.C.iS.C./S.T. candidates, it should be

¶45

AAR, J W P No.20090 o12009

¶46

¶47

-'t-'..i

¶48

between 18-39 years, therefore, the respondent No.4 was ineligible for being selected as Sweeper-cum-Nursing Orderly, as, he has crossed the age of34 years as on 01.04.2008. That the authorities without verifoing the correct credentials of the respondent No.4 have selected the respondent No.4 for the post of Sweeper-cum-Nursing Orderly. The learned counsel has stated that the respondent No.4 had obtained 89.80 marks and in case the application of the respondent No.4 is rejected on the sole ground that he does not meet the eligibility criteria, the petitioner could have been selected for the post of Sweeper-cum-Nursing Orderly.

¶49

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 has stated that the respondent No.4 was selected for the post of Sweeper-cum-Nursing Orderly based on the marks that he had obtained in the examination and also in the oral interview. That the notification issued by the respondent No.2 is not supported by any Government Order or Rules and Regulations. That the respdndent No.4 is the fully qualified candidate, therefore, the contention of the petitioner

¶50

A6X, J W.P.No.20090 oI2OO9

¶51

¶52

t I

¶53

that the respondent No.4 has crossed the age of34 years by the time of written examination is not correct.

¶54

Without going into the merits or demerits of the case, having regard to the fact that the present Writ petition was admitted on 18.09.2009 and no stay or conditional order to the effect that the selection ofthe respondent No.4 shall be subject to the result of the present Writ petition has been granted by this Court, no useful purpose will be achieved even the present Writ Petition is allowed merely on the ground that the respondent No.4 has completed the age limit prescribed by the authorities by a few months. Further, as seen from the cause title, the petitioner was aged 40 years at the time of filing the present Writ Petition and as on date, he will be aged more than 54 years, therefore, by any stretch of imagination, even if the present Writ Petition is allowed, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of such vacancy and be given the post of Sweeper_ cum-Nursing Orderly. In view of the same, this Court does not find any reason to set aside the selection of the respondent No.4 at this length of time.

¶55

¶56

AAJI, J w P.No.20090 o12009

¶57

. -'-f.#.'|

¶58

This Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶59

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶60

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

SD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ./ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// q

¶62

SECTION OFFTCER

¶63

¶64

Two ccs to GP FoR rvED HEALTH AND FAMTLY WELFARE, High court for

¶65

^^{the Stale of-Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]} 2. One CC to SRt.V.BRAHMA|AH CHOWDARy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶66

One CC to SRI.P.V.RAMANA, Advocate tOpUCI

¶67

Two CD Copies

S.A GJP A^__

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510412023

ORDER

E S'i!!]-t:
1 <)
/<
.,,(
).
i_)
2t JuNtB
-s
f i;i--tr.E
'r-:--:rr.:.:-; ar,-j-

WP.No.20090 of 2009

DISMISSING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

6
&$eo
t^A-

Sale Ravi, Khammam District v. the Commissioner , Dpet., F Ayush, and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sale Ravi, Khammam District v. the Commissioner , Dpet., F Ayush, and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. K.V.N.V. Bharathi Devi Vs Sri M. Jagadeeswar, lAS

Challa Ramadevi Vs Rama Rama Rao and another

M/S. Economic Transport Organisation Floet Owners Vs Thodupunuri Srinivas and Another

M/S Espi Industries and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad Vs the Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and 1

Doddipati Saraiah Vs Vuppu Mallikarjun

Jadhav Darabii, Adilabad District. Vs the Jawaharlal Nehru Technologicialuniversity, Hyd.