Disposed

Vikesh Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Apr 2023WP/31040/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to declare the State Government's failure to include Sepak Takraw in sports reservation illegal. The court, without examining merits, directed respondents to consider a representation for 2% reservation and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider the petitioners' representation for Sepak Takraw reservation and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Vikesh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY,^{THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO}

¶7

WRIT PETI^{TIONNO: 31040 0F 2021}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vikesh Kumar.^{S/o Late M Vriay Kumar'Aged about3g vears'Occ' Part} time Coach,^{R/o H No rr i-'6'ia'3J"ii'Aim aagn' Ram Leela Ground} Afzal Saoar^HYderabad

¶10

Afzal Saoar^HYderabad 6;',i(1"t'Di"; Ji^{"b16" ba nou,a Vishwanatham.Aged about32 vears occ} Pvt Employee Employee^{R/o H Ni; "ili3ilil, H Ni; "ili3ilil, Ni; "ili3ilil, "ili3ilil,-Cnan"oan Wadi' Wadi'Gbshamahal}

¶11

2 Pvt Employee Employee^{R/o H Ni; "ili3ilil, H Ni; "ili3ilil, Ni; "ili3ilil, "ili3ilil,-Cnan"oan Wadi' Wadi'Gbshamahal}

¶12

3 El''it"""slJ-r)s-'rzis)A HvderabadS-illir^jti.i,r S/o^{Shark Ahmed snrn'Juni Aged r'r'g'i, about tuonimmedi Lines' 38 years',Occ Business' Golconda'R/o} Hvderabad

¶13

Hvderabad S/o. Late^{Polakonda Rama Rao,Aged about32-years}

¶14

1. Occ. P6lakonda Pvt^{EmPloyeeNagarlun} il;^'t-i'n; ialJ-rr^{Goshamah'al,-ACPoffice' Besum} Bazar. Hvderabad

¶15

Bazar. Hvderabad

¶16

s Efil3n"ln]ii,rih*"oov^{sro ch Madhava-Re99v'ngeo about 32 vears occ} Pvt Emproyee^{R/o H No riloeidla/tug7i'xdrwa"nRoad'MoghalKaNala} Golconda.^Hvderabad

¶17

Golconda.^Hvderabad

¶18

6 X;i;;;;"k;;,i;;;;^{S/o K vadasirr' Ased about 38 vears'occPvt} Emolovee R/o^{H No 5z soJa'*E'i cdrony' nearUMCCJeedimetla} Outhu6nutta^{npr., r Ranga ReddyDrstrict'}

¶19

7 ##;"";^{Be!-rm o,'o s;;iJ";-kd"Asedabout3T vears'.occ Pvt} -zo -oarussalam]om Nagar' Hyderabad

¶20

Employee^{R/o H N-o s s"-i}

¶21

a omi Pvt^a Employee^{i wa} s^{n m a re Rlo S/o H} 1:*^I lBa,rlag:fl:1i?.it"fl ,fi !l il,3:,1"r?iilli; Hyderabad ...pETlTroNERS

¶22

...pETlTroNERS

¶23

AND

¶24

1 The State^{of Telangana. Rep. by rts Principal Secretary'Youth Advancement'} ioi ;#'; ;^{c", iirie, spo,tst o6pirtment' se-cretariat' Hvderabad}

¶25

2 il;' V ;"t;;;,n -, n,i rua nuo,-.,ii:*:i"A:mnfl '111,"o..:%3:J"''"n'i" ^ 17 Old^{tvlumbarHrghwaYVrn;}

¶26

? LVR 6lympic^{BhavanL B} Telanagana^{olymprcnr.o"'ut'6i"'"ri'-uingoffiCe} 't Stadrum Hyderabad ...RESPoNDENTS Petitron under^{Artrcle 226 of the Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the}

¶27

circumstances^{statedrn the affidavrtfiledtherewith'the High Court may be} pleasedtolssuearlorderdrrecttonorwritmoreappropriatelyWritofMandamus declarrng^{the actron of the State Government i e'} '^{Respondents 1 and 2 ln not} taklngstepstolncludesEPAKTAKRAWsportforextendingitsplayerssports

{

and lnstitutions^{is as illegal,} reservatlon in^{State GovernmentsDepartments} of Constitution^{of lndiaand} arbitrary and^{violattve of 14 15 16 and 2'1} consequently^{direct the Respondentsherelnto} rnclude the SEPAK^TAKRAW Sport in reservatlon^{quotais meantfor sports} persons in State Governments Departments^{andlnstitutions,in the interestof Justice}

¶34

IANO:1 OF^2O21

¶35

Petition under^{Section151C PC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petitron the High court may be pleasedto} direct the^{Respondentshereinto rncludethe SEPAK TAKRAW Sportin} reservation^{quota ismeant for sports persons rn StateGovernments} Departments^{and lnstitutions'pending disposalof the Writ Petrtionin the interest} of lustice

¶36

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI M A' MUJEEB}

¶37

Counsel for^{RespondentNo.'t: GP FOR SPORTS}

¶38

Counsel for^{Respondent Nos'2 & 3: SRI G' SATISH REDDY}

¶39

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶40

I I I I I ti t ! t t I

¶41

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶42

WRIT PETITION No.31O4O of 2()2l

¶43

ORDER

¶44

1'he petir ioners filed Lhe prcsent Writ petition seeking Writ of Mondanuts dcclaring the action of the respondent Nos. I and 2 ir) nol. taking steps to include SEPAK TAKRAW Sport lor cxrending its players sports reservation in Stat<: (iovcrnmcnt. I)epartments and Institutions as ill<:g:il, irrbitr:rn, :rr-rd violative of Articles, 14, 15, 16 and 2I ot Constirution of India and consequently dircct Lhc rt:spondcnts herein to include the SEPAK TAKRAW Sporr rn r(.scrviltion quota is meant for sports persons in Sr trlt⁽ iov(,'rnmcnt Departments ald Institutions.

¶45

Heard, Sri Nuvrrr:rn, lcarrrccl <:ounscl rcpresenting Sri. M.A. Mujccb, lc:rrnt:cl c:ounscl lor thc petitioners, learned Assistitn t (iovt:r-n trcnt I)lcadcr for Sports appearing on bchzrlf ol' thc rr:sporrclcnt No.1 and Sri G. Satish Reddy lcarrrcci Strrrrrling Cr>unscl appearing on behalf of thc rcsporrrlt'rrt Nos.2 :rnd I].

¶46

¶47

Learned counsel for the pctitioner submitted that during the pendency of the Writ l)ctition, thc pctitioners submittcd a representation to respor-r<lcnt N.s.2 :rnd 3 on 04 02'2023 requesting them to pr.vidc 2%, Rcservation to the Sepak Takraw sporstmen and sportsu,omen and thc same is pending with them. [[c rr:qucstcd this Court to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pass zrppropriatc orders.

¶48

Thc learned Assistant Govcrrr rncnt plca<l<,r for Sports appearing on behalf of the responclcnts submits rhat thc respondents may be directed to p,rss ()rcr(:rs .. t he said rt;presentation by giving rcasonablc I irnr..

¶49

.) In view of the same, without g()inla ttr Io I h(' rnerits of thc caso, the Writ petition is disposc.cl ol. clir.<.r:ting th<: rcspondent Nos.2 and 3 to considr:r. tht: t.r,p rcsc rt tation submitted by the petitioners datcct O t.O.2.20.23 :rr r cl pass appropriatc orders, in accordanc.c rvit lt lirrr . rr ithin a period of three (O3) months from tl.rt' rl:rtc oI r(.(.cipt of a cop1, of this order.

¶50

(t. Acr.rrrdingly, thc rvrit pctrr i,,rr r.. rlispos<.rl oI. No co:i( s

; d

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if

¶56

aly, pending in this writ petition, shall stands closed.

¶57

SO/-T.JAYASR ASSISTANT RE ST R //TRUE COPY//

¶58

SECTI FFICER

¶59

¶60

To, The Vice Chairman^{and Managrng Drrectrng Sports Authorityof Telangana,} i 7 bf d nilumOai^{Highway, Vina-ya(anagar' Gachi9owlr, Hyderabad}

¶61

2 rhe i eiJnagi;a oiympic^{Assocratron-Havrng officeat LVR olympicBhavan,} L.B. Stadium,^Hyderabad

¶62

One CC to Sri^lvi A^{Mujeeb Advocate} [oPUCl

¶63

iw; CC"io GP^For Sforts,High^{Court for thd State of Telangana[OUT]} 5 One CC to Sri^{G. Satiah Redd,Aovocate(oPuc)}

¶64

Two CD Copies

MBC

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^1010412023

'<br>a
0 3 jl,i'l 208 ,l
,:.)

¶72

ORDER

¶73

WP.No.31040^{ot 2021}

¶74

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION}

¶75

WITHOUT^COSTS

Vikesh Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kommineni Ramaiah Vs The Government of A.P.

Sapka Lingaiah and 6 Others Vs the Govt of Ap., Forest Dept., and 4 Others

A.P.State Schedule Tribes, Hyderabad. Vs the Prl.Secretary to Govt.,S.W.,Hyd.,and 9 Otrs.

M/s. Seghani Agro Tech Vs The State of Telangana

Gitte Namdev Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

M/s . Narmada Industries Vs The State of Telangana