Disposed

K.Venkatesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2023WP/30294/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-evaluation of OMR sheets for School Assistant recruitment. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, instructing the respondent TSPSC to evaluate the sheet and consider candidature if bubbling was correct, setting two-week timelines for action.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh representation within one week; Respondents to consider same and evaluate petitioners OMR sheet if bubbling correct within two weeks.

K.Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 30294 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.Venkatesh, S/o Maddileti, aged about 23 years, Unemployee, R/o H.No. 2-109, Budamuru village, Wadeeplly mandal Alampur taluk, Jogulamba Gadwal dist509 1 26. (HT.No. 1 7 52900932).

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, School Education Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Telangana State Public Service Commission, At Nampally, Hyderabad, rep., by its Secretary.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Orders, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 2nd respondent in not valuating the petitoner's OMR Sheet vide HT.No.1 752900932 vide Notification No.5212017 lor the post of School Assistant^(Social Studies) since there is no error in bubling of the petitioner's Answer Script while appointing less meritorious candidates than him which is clearly illegal, arbitrary, and unlsut and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of School Assistant (Social) pursuant to the above Notification as he secured 77.475 marks with State Rank45 and District Rank-10 in Mahabubnagar as^per his merit and roaster by evaluating the answer script of the^petitioner and issue appointment order with all consequentiaI benefits.

¶16

IA NO:^{1 OF 2023}

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} direct the^{respondentsto consider the case of the pelitioner for appointmentto} the^post of^{School Assistant(Social Studies) as per his merit and rankingin} Mahabubnagar^{districtby disposing of his representationdt. 27 -O9-2O23basedon} the information^{furnished under RTI Act.}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI P.NARASIMHA}

¶19

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SERVICESI}

¶20

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.2 : SRIM.RAMGOPAL RAO, SC FOR TSPSC} The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶21

THE HON'BLE^{SMT.JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI} WRIT PETITION No.3O294 of 2023

¶22

OR.DER:

¶23

This writ petition is hled^{seeking adirection tothe} respondents to^{consider the marks secured by him inthe} exdrnination conducted^{byvaluating hisanswerscript and} consequently to^{issue appointment orders with all consequential} benefits and^{to pass such otherorder or orders.}

¶24

2- Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submittedthat earlier, the} petidoner had filed a^{writ petition challengingthe action of the} respondents^{in not evaluatingthe petitioner's OMR sheet in the} examination^{held for recruitmentto the post of School Assistant} (Social Studies). It^{is submitted that initially, the writ petitionwas} disposed of^{with a directionto considerthe representationof the} petitioner and against the same,^{TSPSC has filed a writ appeal and} the writ^{appeal was alsodisposedof by its commonorder dated} 19 -O7 .2021 directing^{the respondent-TSPSCto take immediate} steps to issue^{lettersof appointmentin favour of the successful} candidates in their^{respective categories of poststhat remained} unfilled in^{view of} the interim^{order of the Court dated19.07.2018.} It is submitted that^{some of the writ petitions have beendisposed of}

¶25

¶26

¶27

P\ID.J \ .P.\o..:(l19 t of 20ll

¶28

following the said^judgment whereas there are other writ pctitions which are still pending and the writ petition hled by the petitioner i.e., W.P.No.9B87 of 2018 was not included in the cornmon order in the W.A.No.1369 of 2Ol8

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner's OMR sheet has not been evaluated and his case has not been considered for appointment though the^petitioner is confident of securing more marks and is a meritorious candidate according to the information obtained by him under the Right t-o Information Act.

¶30

Mr.M.Ram Gopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel lor Telangana State Public Service Commission appearirrg for respondent No.2 has obtained written instructions conhrming the above legal ar-rd factual position

¶31

In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and propcr to direct the petitioner to submit a fresh representation stating all the facts and the respondents-TSPSC shall consider the same and if the petitioner's OMR sheet did not contain any wrong bubbling, the respondents shall evaluate his paper and consider his candidature as per the order of merit and roster. The petitioner shall make a

¶32

I'{ D.J \ I'.\o 10194 of l0l-l

¶33

)

¶34

representation within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents shall pass orders thereon within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter.

¶35

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶37

SD/. P. PADMANABHA EDDY ASSISTANT REG TRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶38

SECTION FFICER

¶39

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary,SchoolEducationDept.,Secretariat,Hyderabad} State of Telangana.

¶40

Z itr. S""ret"ty]^{tet"ngan,State Public Service Commission, At Nampally,} Hvderabad,

¶41

O'ne CC to SRI^{P.NARASIMHA, Advocate.} [OPUC]

¶42

;. iil ccs to GP FoR^{SERVICES l, High Court for the state of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶43

s Cjire-Ct io Snt U.neU^{GOPAL RAO, SC for Telangana State Public Service} Commission. [OPUC]

¶44

Two CD CoPies.

BSK GJPNx

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611112023

yiE. STA fF
o,+
q
L
o ? t hi-Ll\i t! 3
* -t
Dt:'i f,ti,i

¶49

ORDER

¶50

WP.No.30294 of 2023

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

.NK
?-\ rs#

K.Venkatesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Venkatesh v. The State of Telangana

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

W. Rahul Vs Sri Anjani Kumar, IPS

M/s Surabhi Security Services Vs P Ravinder

Dr. Tandra Praneeth Vs Sri. Gadala Srinivasa Rao

Sri a Seenaiah Vs The State of Telangana

B.Ramesh Vs The Telangana State Power Generation of Company Limited (Tsgenco)

Lingathoti Dayakar Vs The State of Telanagana