Petitioner sought quashing of rejection order and directed appointment to Home Guard post claiming selection under General Number 2248. Court found petitioner was not selected; number was token only. Petition dismissed with costs.
No relief granted. Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[33831
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION(TR )N O:2662 OF 2017
Between:
SYED GULAM MOHAMMED,^S/o. Syed Gulam Mustafa, Aged about 29 years, Occ Unemployee, Ryo.Flat No.c2, 1S[Ftoor, Vinayaka Niriyari, rurinliim X ifoiO, Tarnaka, Nacharam, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High-court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceeding uo.g+sl 41lHGs.Hyd/20'14, dated 17.O4.2O14 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Home Guard with all consequential benefits, by holding the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the applicant's genuine claim for appointment to the post of Home Guard even though the applicant's appointment matter is pending with the 3rd respondent is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and subversive of articles 14, 16 of the constitution of lndia.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt MOHAMMED HABEEBUDDIN
Counsel forthe Respondents: AGP FOR HOME
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION (TRI NO.2662 0F 2017
ORDER
This writ petition is hled praying to grant the following
reliel
".....to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings No.343/AI /HG s.Hyd/2014, dated 17.O4.2Ot4 issued by respondent No. 1 and quash the sarne, consequently dfuect the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Home Guard with all consequential benefits, by holding the action of the respondent No.I in rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Home Guard even though thc matter is pending with t].e respondent No.3, as illegal, arbltrary, discriminatory arrd subversive of Articles 14, 16 oi the Constitution of India".
3 The brief facts of the present writ petition are as lollows:
+. In pursuance of the notification issued by the respondents inviting applications for the post of Home Guard, the petitioner applied for selection. The petitioncr was called for interview and he attended thc interview at Gosha Mahal police
2
I.iA, .l tv P. (t?l No-2662 of2017
Station, Hyderabad on 20.01.2008 along with other <:andidates. The pctitioner was allotted Home Guard Number 2248 and was issued ldentity Card along with Uniform anci thar. th<: petitioner was under Lhe bona fide impression that he has been appointed as Homc Guard. It is contended that the respondent No.l orally informed the petitioner that appointment orders will be sent by post. However, the petitioner did not r,--ceive any appointment order and that the other candidates who attended along r,r,ith him have been appointed as Homc Gr_rards and performing duties.
3
LNA. J w-P./.7:Rl No 2662 of 20 17
4
LNA, J w.P. t-R) No_2662 of 2017
5
LNA, J w P.i,]iR) No 2662 oJ 20 t7
arise. The petitioner submitted another application dated 3O.O5.2012 to Addl. D.c.P., for Home Guards, Hyderabad. The petitioner was informed by Addl. D.G.P ofhce that he was not selected.
6
n.o U*, "".ruu,"ilf;'rN
petitioner's representation dated 30.05.2012 was crroneously rejected by the respondents, against which the petitioner approached the Tribunal uide O.A.No.1900 of 20l4 end Honble APTP disposed of O.A. directing the respondcnts to c,rnsider the application. The respondents without properly appr(.ciating the representation o[ the petitioner, issued the impugrred proceedings dated 17.04.20 14. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court.
7
I-NA..J w.P (TR) No 2662 o[ 20 l7
the final order uide D.O.No. 159 of 2OO8, dated, 25.06.2008 in which the names of 12O selected candidates were me n[ioned. A perusal o[ the impugned proceedings dated lZ.O4.2OI4 also show that the petitioner was informed that the numbcr 2248 as referred to by the petitioner, is not a General Number and in fact, it is a token number given at the time of recruitment process.
8
LNA, J w.t, tfRl No.2662 oI2017
There shall be no order as to costs.
Misccllaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition , shall stand closed.
SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISIANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
To,
secrrouxircen
1 One CC to SRt MOHAMI/ED HABEEBUDDTN Advocate IAPUCI 2 Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Tell ngana. [OUT] 3 Two CD Copies GJ GJP \ $-
HIGH COURT
DATED:0911112023
ORDER
WP(TR).No.2662 of 2017
,,1i'.- E S Tr1 fc
(o
/-)
1 2 [r[ 2023
LIoz
t;
.,,! ()
::-,-
DrsMrssrNc THE WP(TR) WITHOUT COSTS
$
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct appointment of the petitioner to the post of Home Guard when he was not successful in the selection process.
Whether the petitioner's reliance on a token number as a General Number justifies his claim for appointment.
Syed Gulam Mohammed
The Commandant, O/o. Commandant Home Guards, Hyderabad City
The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City
The Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards Organization, Hyderabad
The Director & Inspector General of police, Telangana
The Government of Telangana
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
