Disposed

Mohammed Salauddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Nov 2023WP/30355/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for appointment to the MPHAM post if he falls under the same category as petitioners in W.P. No.33282 of 2022, disposing of the petition without costs at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to verify petitioner's category equivalence to W.P. No. 33282 of 2022 petitioners and dispose of representation within six weeks.

Mohammed Salauddin Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁹¹

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THEFIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICEP. MADHAVIDEVI}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO: 30355 0F 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

MohammedSalauddin,s/o.Sharfuddin,-agedabout5lyears,occ'Unemolovee.^(BC B) Fi;^{H.rtro.iOz.RachaiapallyVillage''Midgil Mandal'} tvtahatiuOnadar^{District, Telangana State'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of^{Telangana,rep by its Principal Secretary', Health} '^{IMedical and} i;;[, wdfr;"^{oeFartnieni' S'ecretariati3u ildrngs, HyderabadTelangana} State.

¶12

2 The Director^{of Public Healthand Familywelfare, Governmentof Telangana,} Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The District Medical^{and Health Officer,Mahabubnagar' Mahabubnagar} District, Telangana^State.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be} a writ orier^{or:direction more particularlv one in the nature of} ;i;;;;'t"l;;re irvrii .i Mandamus^{declaring lhe actionof the respondentsin not disposing} ieoiesentation^{dt 0g_10-2025and not considering the case of the petitioner for} #ffi;;;ii;ih;;*1 ot urrrti^{purpose Heatth As^sistanrMare, MPHAM inspite} Ii[rJur. of^{this Honble Corrt in W.VM P No 2120 ol 2015 in WP No' 3178of} ior+- ort"a.^{15.09.20'15 even though secuflngthe more marksthen the} re-appointed^{videG.O R-t No.1207dated 0g '10 2013 is illegal'} "anOia"i". ,ioiii"rv^{discrimination ,ni-violrtionof Artictes14, 16 of the constitution of} direct the respondents^{to appointthe petitioner to the.post of} rnJii "6nruqr"nfly M;iti P;rpoJ"^{Heattn nssistantMaIeMPHAMas^ he secured more marks then} il;" 6;;;i"s ,u-rppoini"o in^{G o Rt No 1207' dated 0s 10 2013 bv} iror"L?"]i.g iL "rouiJoift,it Honble court^{in wvMP No 2120 of 2015 in wP} r.rJsliS oriola^{dated15 09 2015 the samewas. implementedin respect of} ,lrir"irv situated^{person in c.o.Rt.Not:01 dated 30.08 2.023 with all service} ,.4 r"'"it-V^{benefits and seeking the respondentsto dispose the representation}

¶16

¶17

dated. 09.10.2023 and similar circumstances this honble^{court passed ordersin} W.P.No 25696 of 2023 and batch dt 23-9'20?3.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

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} respondents to dispose the representation dated. 09.1O.2023,^{pendingdtsposal} of the WP

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.3O355 of 2o23

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 1O.1O.2023 for appointment to the post of Multi Purpose Health Assistant MaIe, MPHAM on the basis of the marks secured by him in the selection process pursuant to notification, dated 22.07.2OO2 arid to pass such other order or orders.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that many of the meritorious candidates who participated in the selection procqss of MPHA (Male) who were denied appointment, have approached this Court and this Court in W.P.No.33282 of 2622 ind otlrers has taken all the facts into consideration and has directed the respondents to appoint the meritorious candidates who have secured more marks than the candidates who have been appointed rride G.O.Rt.No. l2O7 dated 09. 1O.20 l3 on contract basis. He therefore seeks similar reliel in

¶29

¶30

W.P.No.lr)355^{of 20ll}

¶31

¶32

this case^{and submitted that thepetitionerhas} submitted^{his representation to the authorities'}

¶33

Learned^{GovernmentPleaderforServices-Il'} however,^{seeks time to file counter in this case'}

¶34

Having^{regard to the rival contentionsand the} material^{onrecord, this Court hnds thatthe} examination^{'uvas condrtctedway-back in the year 2OO2} on 11.08.2002^{ald therewas a litigation pending and it} went up^{to the Honble SupremeCourt and hnally} matter^{has been adjudicated in W'P'No's'15427 of 2020} and 15441^{of 2O2O and also W'P'No'33282of 2022 atd} batchandtherespondentshaveimplementedthe directions^{of this Court and appointment orderswere} also^{given' The case of the petitioner is that he also falls} under ttre^{same category' However' the said claim is to} be verified^{bY the resPondents'}

¶35

In^{view of the same' instead of keeping the writ} petition pending,^{this Court deems it fit and proper to} dispose of the^{same at the admission stagewi-tha} \

¶36

W. P.No-i0l55 of 202i

¶37

¶38

direction to the respondents to look into the

¶39

representation of the petitioner and consider the case for appointment only if he lalls in the same category as the writ petitioners in W.P.No.33282 of 2022. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these

¶41

writ petitions, shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/.T. JAYASREE //TRUE COPYII ASSISTANT REGIETRAR I secrror.i BrrrcEn

¶43

To,

¶44

1 The Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and^{FamilyWelfare Department, The} State of Tdlangana, Secretarrat Buildings, Hyderabad,Telangana^State.

¶45

2 The Director of Public Health and^{FamilyWelfare, Governmentof Telangana,} Hyderabad.

¶46

3 The District Medical and Health Officer, Mahabubnagar,^Mahabubnagar District. Telangana State.

¶47

4 ONE CC tO SR-i R. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,^AdVOCAIC [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of^Telangana. tourl

¶48

tt Two CD Copies BN BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 111t2O23

ORDER

WP.No.30355 of 2023

,q
/a:
SIATE OA
ii^t
''5& i,o
l N'N
:)
,.J
t.'/
\i lJ -.-Y
' jr i'-r,l'.1i.'7r1
. i- -- .-:;;-

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITtlII OUT COSTS

¶56

r,<br>^

Mohammed Salauddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Salauddin 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

Siddharth Vs The State of Telangana

Pachipala Venkata Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Mehboob Vs The State of Telangana

Vaddepally Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

R.P. Rao Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Garla Sreenu Vs The State of Telangana