Disposed

Ch.Vijaya Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Nov 2023WP/30488/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment as Multi Purpose Health Assistant Male against re-appointment of others. Court disposed of writ at admission stage, directing respondents to verify petitioner's eligibility against W.P.No.33282 of 2022 and decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Direction to respondents to look into petitioner's representation and consider case for appointment if he falls in same category as W.P.No.33282 of 2022.

Ch.Vijaya Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e 1

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 30488 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ch.Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Nagarayanaji, aged about 42^yearc, Occ ; Un-employee, Fl/o. H. No.9-2-9715, Plot No.22, Bhavani Nagar, Christianpally, Mahabubnagar, Telangana State- 509001^.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1- The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District lt/edical and Health Officer, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District' Telangana state

¶14

.....RES'.NDENT.

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 ot 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment to the^post of Multi Purpose Health Assistant [,4ale, MHAM inspite of orders of this Hon'ble Courtⁱⁿ W.V.M.P.No.2120 of 2015 in W.P.No.3178 of 2014 dated 15-09-2015 even though securing the more marks then the candidates re-appointed^vide G.O.Rt.[llo.1207 dated 09-10-2013 is illegal, arbitrary,^{discriminationand} I Violatioh of Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of lndia consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the^post of Multi Purpose Health Assistant Male, lVlP HAIVI as he secured more marks then the candidates^re- appointed in G.O.Rt.No.12O7, dated. 09-10-2013 by implementing the orders^of this Honorable Court in WVI/P.No.2120 ot 2O15 in W.P.No.3178 of 2014 dated 15-09-2015 the same was implemented in respect of similarly situated^person in

¶16

G.O.Rt.No.130'1 dated. 30-08-2023 wrth all service^{and monitory benefitsand} seeking the respondents to dispose the^{representationdated05-10-2023.} l.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the^{petition, the High Courtmaybe pleased to} respondents to dispose the representation^{dated 0S-10-2023. pendingdisposal} of the writ^petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner^: SRI R.SATYANARAYANA^MURTHY

¶19

Gounsel for the Respondents : GP^{FOR SERVICES} -^ll

¶20

The Court at the stage of admission made^{the followingORDER}

¶21

) II

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.3O488 of 2o23

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 05.IO.2023 for appointment to the post of Multi Purpose Health Assistant Male, MPHAM on the basis of the marks secured by him in the selection process pursuant to notihcation, dated 22.07.2OO2 and to pass such other order or orders.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that many of the meritorious candidates who participated in the selection process of MPHA (Male) who were denied appointment, have approached this Court and this Court in W.P.No.33282 of 2022 and others 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 beqn appointed I vide G.O.Rt.No. I2O7 dated 09.10.2013

¶26

on contract basis. He therefore seeks similar relief in

¶27

W.P 1,\o.lr 488 of 2021 2

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Having regard to the^{rival contentions and the} material on record, this Court^{finds thatthe} examination was conducted^{way-back in the yeat 2OO2} on 11.08.2002^{and there was a litigation pendingarrd it} went up to the Hon'ble^{Supreme Court and fina-lly} matter has been adjudicated^{in W.P.No's'15427 of 2O2O} and 15441 of 2O2O and^{also W.P.No.33282 of 2022 and} batch and the respondents^{have implementedthe} directions of this^{Court and appointment orderswere} also given. The^{case of the petitioner is that he also falls} under the same category.^{However,the said claim is to} be verified by the^resPondents.

¶31

In view of tl-e same,^{instead of keeping the writ} petifion pending, this Court deems it fit^{and proper to} dispose of the same at^{the admissionstage with a}

¶32

\/.1'.No loJlllt of 202l

¶33

¶34

direction to the^{respondents to look intothe} representation of the^{petitioner and consider the case for} appointment only if he falls^{in the same category as the} The writ petitioners in^{W.P.No.33282 of 2022.} respondents shall^{pass appropriateordersthereon,} within a period of six^{(06) weeks from the date of receipt} of a copy of this order.^{Thereshall be no order as to}

¶35

COStS.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions, if^{any, pending inthese}

¶37

writ petitions, shall stand^closed.

¶38

SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR //rRUE coPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR secrldftrrtcen

¶39

¶40

l.ThePrinclpalsecretary,Health,MedicalandFamilyWelfareDepartment' Secretariai Buildings,^{State of Telangana at Hyderabad}

¶41

Z. ine Oii""tor of Pu[tic^{Healthand Fahily Welfare, Governmentof Telangana,} Hyderabad.

¶42

a. fie Oistrict Medical^{and HealthOfficer, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar} District, Telangana^State.

¶43

+. iwo C'Cs io^{C"p for Services-ll,High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶44

1. d; CC to Sri^{R.SatyanarayanaMurthy, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶45

Two CD CoPies SA GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211112023

ORDER

WP.No.30488 of 2023

r it oA
{
y'i
z
L
( q - l\U! r':,',i i:tlJ _-
c \l) 3
+
",'i, i'li1,17'
'" -;^-::r-'

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶52

AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

¶53

wrrr&ur cosrs.

¶54

\ ,/>

Ch.Vijaya Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Vijaya Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaddepally Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

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

Garla Sreenu Vs The State of Telangana

Mir Mohammed Ali, Vs State of Telangana

Akarapu Srinu Vs The State of Telangana

Sangarsu Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana