Disposed

Dasharatha Banoth v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Mar 2024WP/5233/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging non-inclusion in training list for SCT PC (Civil) post filed writ. Held that petition disposed of at admission stage; petitioner granted liberty to make representation to 2nd Respondent who must decide within one week.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to make representation; respondent directed to consider and pass orders within one week.

Dasharatha Banoth Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t³³⁰¹ I

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5233 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dasharatha Banoth, S/o Bhadru, Age. 38 years, Occ. Selected as SCT PC (Civil), R/o H No. 2-18, Raojithanda, Chinnayelapur, Gudur, Mahabubababd Telangana - 506134

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt, Home Department, Dr B R Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 002

¶12

The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (TSLPRB), Rep. by its Chairman, O/o. The Director-General of Police, TelanOna State, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, O/o Warangal Police Commissionerate, Warangal District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent not sending the petitioner for the training for the post of SCT PC (Civil) in Mulugu Unit which scheduled from 21 .02.2024 pursuant to Notification vide No. Rc. No.4'1lRect.lAdmn.112022 Date 25.04.2022 despite referring his case of Cr.No.155/1 1 U/S 419 IPC as 'Mistake of Fact' and 'Action Dropped' is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently, direct the 2nd Respondent to send the petitioner immediately to ongoing training which starts from 21 .02.2024.

¶16

IANO:1OF2 024

¶17

Petition under section^'1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to send the petitioner immediatery to ongoing training which starts from 21 .02.2024, pending disposar of the Main Writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMESH CHILLA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 3: Gp FOR SERVICES

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.V.RAMA RAO, SpL. Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.5233 OF 2024

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief

¶25

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order, or directton particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2"d respondent in not sending the petitioner for the training for the^post of SCT PC (Civil) in Mulugu Unit which scheduled from 21.O2.2024 pursuant to Notification uide Rc.No.41l Rect. /Admn. | 12022, dated 25.04.2022 despite referring his case of Cr.No.155/11 under Section 419 IPC as 'Mistake ol Fact' and Action Dropped is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to send the petitioner immediately to ongoing training which starts from 21,.O2.2O24 and to pass..."

¶26

Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned Special Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Government Pleader for Services for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶27

With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself

¶28

¶29

¶30

PK,J W.P.No.5233 of 2O24

¶31

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of SCT PC (Civil) and has successfully completed all phases of tests such as the preliminary weight test, physical measurement test, physical efficiency test and fina-l written examination uide Registration No. 1269178. Petitioner's name was also included in the provisional selection list, along with other 28 selected carrdidates, published uide RC.No.41/Rect./Admn.7l2022, dated 25 .O4.2O22. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has released a list of 28 candidates selected for training by omitting the petitioner from the said list. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition

¶32

On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has not made any representation before respondent No.2 redressing his grievance. He further submits that, in the event of a representation being made by the petitioner,

¶33

¶34

PK,J W.P.No.5233^{oJ 2024}

¶35

respondent No.2^{will consider the same and pass appropriate} orders, in^{accordance with law}

¶36

¶37

¶38

At this^{juncture, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner} prayed this Court^{to grant liberty to the petitionerto makea} representation^{beforerespondent No 2 and respondentNo'2} maybedirectedtoconsidertheSameandpassappropriate orders thereon

¶39

7 . In view of the^{submissionsmade by the learnedcounsel} for the respective^{parties,without going into the merits of the} case, this Court^{deemsit appropriate to dispose of the Writ} Petition directing^{the petitioner to make arepresentation} before respondent^{No.2 today' Upon receipt ofsuch} representation,^{respondent No'2 is directed to considerthe} same and^{pass appropriate orders, in accord ance with law'} within a^{period of one (01) weekfrom the date of receipt of the} said representation.

¶40

:_i

¶41

¶42

PK,J W.P.No.5233 oJ 2O24

¶43

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands

¶44

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

SD/-MOHD. SANAULLAH^AlrsARl I ASSISTANT REG'FTRAR I //'RUE coPYl' ,EcrtoN 6rr,"=*

¶47

To,

¶48

The Principal Secretary to^{Govt, Home Department, Dr B R Amb-e-dkar} reLngJni becretariat, Fiyderabad,^{Telangana, State of Telangana500002}

¶49

The Chairman, Telangana^{State Level Police Recruitmen! Bgqrd (TSLPRB)'} - Olo. ihe Director-Geniral of Police, TelanOna State, Saifabad, Hyderabad'

¶50

The commissroner of^{Police, o/o warangal Police commissionerate,} Warangal District.

¶51

One CC to SRI RAMESH CHILLA,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CCs to GP^{FOR SERVICES, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶53

Two CCs to SRI^{M.V.RAMA RAO,SPL. GP FOR HOME, HighCourt for the} State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶54

Two CCs to GP FOR HOtrtlE,^{High Courtfor the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶55

Two CD Copies

s BSR

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0110312024

ORDER

WP.No.5233 of 2024

1Hi'- S i47
3
o
k
o
I ,-.r fi

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

A.V

Dasharatha Banoth v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasharatha Banoth 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

Banoth Venkatram, Vs The State of Telangana

G. Adi Babu Vs The State of Telangana

K. Srikanth, Vs The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare

Pokkula Rajani Kumari Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Mekala Janaiah Vs Union of India

D.Srinivasulu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others