Dismissed

V.D.V.S. Prakasa Rao, Vsp. Dist. and 23 Ors. v. Prl. Secy., Gen. Admn. and Ano

Telangana HC30 Oct 2023WP/28951/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging recruitment methods for junior assistants was dismissed for lack of prosecution after no representatives appeared for the petitioners or replied to notices. The High Court held the petitioners were not interested in pursuing the case.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to costs.

V.D.V.S. Prakasa Rao, Vsp. Dist. and 23 Ors. Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ I

¶2

I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

IVIONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 28951 OF 2010

¶9

B[i'tWEIll.i

¶10

)
I
I
I

¶11

V.D.V.S.Prakasa Rao. S/o.late Apparuu, I
Aged about 42 years. Occ: Casual LaSur,
IVo.Regional Agricultural Rcscarcir Station.
Anakapal li. Visakllapatnam Disrdct.
1 K.V.Sanyasi Rao, S/o.Sri Bairagi, i
Agcd about 36 years. Occ: Cusrlnl Labpur. i
R/o.Rcgional Agricultural Rese,arch S$1ibn.
Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. -8:
lA.
3. A.V.l.l.Appa Rao. S/o.Sri Kondar ')
Aged about 38.years, Occ: a
R/o.Regional'Agicultural, -i.
A nakapqlli, Visdkhapat{oi p 'r
:ua,
4 Veduri Srinivasu, S/o
Aged'a!<iqt$&.years;
It b. Regio(aliiAgriculhdrl: rL Anakapalli,
visakhapatnarft .District. .'
5 ManukonCq $rjq_iv$rslq,
Aged
Srikakulam Disrict
6 aiah,
Aged
District.i
7 i.
Dlstrict
8
R/0,{4 Distlictl
l,
9. AIla
I
- "et

¶12

ti-

¶13

(,, t

¶14

Ei 8l tr {G F t! 1; II li t!'rl ]-L h L I I, kt'

¶15

!0	SaripalliSuryaprakasaRao.S,/o.SriNarasinrhatvlurtl,r. Ad b40 OCllb	t
	gc aout icars,cc:asua-aour. R/o. Rcgional AgricrrlturalIlcsearch Station.Martair.W.Ci.[)istricr	r {G F
!l	IilcpavPra-sannaKurnarDesai,S/o.Sril'.flsannaI(a,,.	t!
	Agcd about40r'ears.Occ:^(hsual[,abour.	1;
	I{/o AgriculturalRcsearch Station.Peddapurarn.['.ait(ioilarari[)i.lricl	II li
I2	K.Srinivasa Rao.S^(r.SriVecraiah,	rlt!'
	Agcdabout43 lears.Occ:⁽asual[,abour.	]-L h
	It/o. AsriculturalRescarch Station.Amaravati- Gunlrrrl)istrisl	L I
I]	B.Venkatcswaramnra,Wo.SriA.Srinivas.	I,
	Aged about39years,Occ;CasualLabour.	kt'
	R/o.AgriculturalRcscarch Statiorr.,Machililatnam.KlishnaI)islricl
l1	M.Satyana-rayana.Sio.late M.Sanyasi Itao.	[. I,.
	Agedabout4lycars,Occ:Casuall-abour,	1,^. ti ,
	BJo.Regional AgriculruralRcscarch Station,⁽hinlan.rtlr	l:
	VisakhapatnamI)istrict.	t: ti[:
l-(	.B-Vcnugopal,Sio.Sril].Mallc'sh,	1
	.A.ec R-/o	,,, li; ltt EI
t6	.K.S
	Age	F
	lUo agityala.Karirnrraga:.I)istricl	ti I
l1	:^.1,1	I,t: V
	Agedabout38years,Occ:	}l-li
	R/o.AgricrrlturalResearch	lrr
		I
IE		tit
	'!	li.i '
	R/o.Agriculturc College;'As marn District	l!llit
l9	G.Mrrrali Ktishna,S/O.Sri.K	fi-,
	Aged about:32.years,iOicld	F
	Vo.AgricglFqalRpgc4rc_.h Khamnran)District
		l
20	.M.DargaiallS/o,Sri.	[:
	Aged	li
	,Warangal :1.^_-</sup>	Ii E.
2l.	B.Nagender, o.SriHan	E?
	Agedaborlt{l	Ei E;I
	RDistrict R/oAgicul6ual	Ei
	. ..	FI '
22	Md	Wt-
	.. Ageda r:S/
	R/o.Regio Palem.	ffii
	Mh	Eli
	aa	, EtsI'
	.,I, il	F;
	'(	B;
	r.1	Xtir p:
	L ..rij;'j;*!+i	6,,

¶16

¶17

6t'"/
23. M.A.Nishat Bcgum, Wo.Md.rtpgliar,
AE.d about 42 ycars, Occ: Casiral Labglu,
R/o.N{ohiuddin Student Fann, f.ajendniNagar, Hytlerabad.
24 B.Viiaya Lakshrni, Wo.Sri Vehugopal,'
Agcd about 34 years, ()cc: Casiral Labour.
R/o.Conrputcr Ccntrc. Ra jendrA Nagar, Hyderabad.
PI,IITIONERS
ru{D
/Govemrnent of Andhra Pradesf,
itep.b1,.its Principal Secretary -i- (ienerat Adrn inistration.
Secrctariat, Hyderabad. j
.i'i
2 Acharya N. G.Ranga Agricu ltur Il .LIniversily, ':;!!
Rep.by i15 Registrar, Rajendrar bgar. ; :-ji.:
rir:
Hyderabad.rz 1E
..RES ffitDENTS
-Lq:.

¶18

circumstances Petition under stated Article in the 226 affidavit 0f the filed constitution therewith, of the lndia High praying that - Co=urt may in thebe pleased to issue a Writ of lvlandamus, or any other appropriite Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the impugned Advertisement dt. 27 .g.2o1o to fir up the 100 posts of Junior Assistant^-cum Typists by written examination and intervrew along the news applicants ignoring the earlier decision taken vide tetters dt. 24.2.2010 & 12.3.2O1O as^-illegai arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution and further direct ihe respondents to recruit the petitioners to the said posts of Junior Assistant cum Typist subject to the fulfillment of their qualification as stipulated under the Regulations 1 98'1,_...,/

¶19

l.A. NO; 1 OF 201o(WPMP. NO:36886 OF 2010)

¶20

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 grant interim direction directing the respondents not to fill up 24'posts of Junior Assistant cum Typists covered under the Advertisement dl. 27.g.2010, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE^{NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.28951 OF²⁰¹⁰

¶23

ORDEIT:

¶24

on On several occasions, there^{u'as no repl'esell t(ltion} bt half of the prc'titioners. Even^{toclay,thgle is no re'prest'rrtatiou} on behall of thc petitioners.

¶25

Flaving rcgard to the above,^{this Court is of thc}

¶26

opinion that the petitioners^{are rlot interestetl to pulsuethe} present writ pe tition.

¶27

3 Therrefore, the prcscnt Writ Petition^{is disnrissed for}

¶28

rlon-prosecution. No order as^{to costs.}

¶29

As a scquel, miscellaneous applications^{pencling, if any,}

¶30

in this Writ I'etition, shall^{stand ciosed}

¶31

sD/-MoHD.^rsfarr- ASSISTANT^REGISy'RAR //TRUE^COPY// sEcrroN 8(rr"r*

¶32

To, 1 2 ff: 33JiJSEi?#3EHiA1'fi'Ji/ltRB1?L-roN'^{Hish courtror the state} gJ""33i3E-l?'5L *oo REDDY Advocate toPUCl 3. 4. Two^{CD CoPies} BN GJ P

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011012023

ORDER

WP.No.28951 of 2010

I ..ATE o
j
rtD t,c)
)o NTN
{
_,\ .;
.. rY' ..'
.I l,l:.lfij'-- /
:'::.!?- _

¶40

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS

¶41

ffi6

V.D.V.S. Prakasa Rao, Vsp. Dist. and 23 Ors. v. Prl. Secy., Gen. Admn. and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.D.V.S. Prakasa Rao, Vsp. Dist. and 23 Ors. v. Prl. Secy., Gen. Admn. and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prof.v.Jagadeeshwar Rao, Hyderabad. Vs the Edunl Multi Media Resch Centre, Hyd and 2 Others

Smt.Chouta Nagamma, Guntur Dist. Vs Secy. Home Dept. Goi, N Delhi and 4 Others

K.Padma Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by Principal Secretary

Mudraboyina Ramulu Vs Government of A.P. and 3 Others

K.Venu Vs The Northern Power Distribution Company of Ap Limited

Mohd., Zaheer Vs The Andhra Board for Ayurveda and Homeopathy