Dismissed

Pathlavath Mounika v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Mar 2024WP/5824/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a selected candidate seeking direction for police training was disposed of at the admission stage by direction to the recruitment board to consider her pending representation regarding criminal record disclosure, referencing the Apex Court judgment in Revindra Kumar v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2023 and pass appropriate orders within one week in light of Revindra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Pathlavath Mounika Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^3301]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETIT]ON NO: 5824 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pathlavath Mounika, D/o Baloji, Aged 22 Years, Occ Student, Ri/o Pathalavath Tanda Village, Devarkonda Mandal,Nalgonda District. State of Telangana.

¶9

.,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Director General of Police Lakadikapul, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶13

3 Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, Rep by it's Chairman, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad

¶14

4 The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Telangana State.

¶15

5 The Station House Officer, Devarakonda, Nalgonda Dist.

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitutiqn 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, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent l'.1o.3 and Respondent No.4 in not sending the petitioner to training as SCT Police Constable (Ar) in Police Department in OC(W) in Nalgonda local District pursuant to the selection vide Notification Rc No 4'|lRect./Admn-ll2O22 dated 25.O4.2022 on the ground of non disclosure of a closed and uninvolved criminal case in FIR no 223 oI 2O21 ot Devarakonda Police Station as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Aft 14,21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently praying this Hon'ble Court to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to take steps for sending the petitioner to training as AR Constable.

IANO:1O F 2024

Petitionundersectionl5lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition' the High Court may be pleased to} direct the^{respondents2 to 4 to take stepsfor sending the petitionerto training} as AR Constable^{forth with'}

¶22

Counsel^{forttrePetitioner: SRI V'R'MACHAVARAM}

¶23

Counsel^{for the Respondents: SRI M'V'RAMA RAO' SPL' GP}

¶24

The Court^{madethe following: ORDER}

¶25

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{PULLA KARTHIK}

¶28

WRIT PEf,ITIO N No.5824 OF 2o24

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed under^{Article 226 of}

¶31

Constitution of India seeking^{the followingrelief}

¶32

"...to issue an appropriate^{Writ, Order or Direction,} more particularly one in tte^{nature of Witof} Mandamus, declaring the action^{of the respondent} l[o.3 and respondent No.4 in not^sendingttrc petttioner to training as SCT^{Police Constable (Ar.) in} Police Department in OC(W) in^{Nalgonda local District} pursuant to th-e selection uide^Notification Rc.No.41/Rect./Admn-I/2022 dated^25.04.2022on the ground of non disclosure of a^{closed and} uninuolued ciminal case in^{FIR No.223 of 2021 of} Deuarakonda Potice Station as^{illegal,arbitrary and in} uiolation of Art.14, 21 of tle^{Constitution of India and} consequently praging this^{Hon'ble Court to directthe} respondents 2 to 4 to take steps for^sendingth.e petitioner to training as AR Constable^{and pass..."}

¶33

This Writ Petition is being disposed.of,^{at the admission} stage, with the consent of both^{the parties.}

¶34

Heard Sri V.R.Machavaram,^{learned counselappearing} on behalf of the petitioner and^{Sri M.V.Rama Rao, Iearned} Special Government Pleader appearing on^{beha-lf ofthe} respondents.

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the notification Rc.No.41/Rect. lAdmn_l /2022, dated 25.04.2022 issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner applied for the post of police Constable and got selected for the post of Armed Constable in the police Department, Nalgonda Unit in general merit list as per her merit in the written test. Thereafter, the office of respondent No.4 contacted the petitioner and handed over the training kit to her for training that is scheduled to be conducted from 21.O2.2O24 for a period of nine months at the police Training Center, Nalgonda. While so, the petitioner was not ca]Ied for training along with the other selected candidates. When she enquir:ed the about the same, she came to know that she was not given full information while filling the application for the said post and during the submission of attestation form, for the question - lf,/hether you have involved in any criminal case?', the petitioner has answered as T.{o,. Further, the respondents have withheld the training of the petitioner on the ground that she suppressed the material information regarding presence of her name in a criminal case urde Crime No.233 of 2O2l on the file of the Station House OIIicer,

¶37

¶38

(

¶39

Devarakonda Police Station, which is factually incorrect. Subsequently, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the Charge sheet as she was not involved in the said case Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not aware of the registration of the said case against her and also about deletion of her from the charge sheet. Furthermore, the petitioner has not approached the Court for obtaining any bail and the notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was also not issued against her. Therefore, the petitioner has opted as 'No' for the question in respect of her involvement in a criminal case. Hence, she made representation, dated 26.12.2023 before respondent No.3 narrating all the facts, however, the same is pending consideration. Therefore, leamed counsel prayed this Court to direct respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated^-26.12.2023 and pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court io Ravlndra Kumar u. State ol U.P. and Ors.l, at the earliest.

¶40

5, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents submits that respondent No.3 will

I MANV lSCl0136/2024

consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 26.12.2023 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶45

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned 'counsel for the respective counsel and since the representation, dated 26.12.2023 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before respondent No.3, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation frled by the petitioner, dated 26.12.2023 and. pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgment of the Hon'lrle Apex Court in Rauind.ra Kumar,s ccse (1 Supra), strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one (0 1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶47

closed.

¶48

sD/- A.V.S.P AD ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION FICER

¶49

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶50

The Director General of Police, Lakadikapul, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶51

¶52

¶53

The Chairman, Tela Lakdikapool, Hyd"rrbrJg"na^{state Level Police RecruitmentBoard,}

¶54

¶55

The Superintendent of police, Nalgonda, Telangana State.

¶56

The Station House Officer, Devarakonda, Natgonda Dist.

¶57

One CC to SRt V.R.MACHAVARAM, Advocate tOpUCI

¶58

Two CCs to SRt y y qJqMA RAO, SpL. Gp, vr ' High I rrY Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad tOUn^"

¶59

Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶60

Two CD Copies

BSR

CC TODAY

t I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0510312024

ORDER

1 HE STAT 6
a.
oo 0 6 i'''i' 2124
*

¶69

WP.No.5824 of 2024

¶70

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶71

WTHOUT COSTS

¶72

6\4rr

Pathlavath Mounika v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathlavath Mounika 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

Smt. Thotakure Narsamma Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. T. Rakesh Singh Vs The State of Telangana

D.Vijaya Kumar Vs State of Telangana

K Narayana Reddy Vs Tsrtc

Daravath Jyoti Vs The State of Telangana

Seethavar Kishan Vs The State of Telangana