Disposed

The Superintending Engineer/ Member Convenor and 3 others v. M Srikanth

Telangana HC9 Jan 2025WA/510/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals concerning awards and selection committee proceedings were disposed of by consent after parties agreed the memo dated 14.05.2010 was not considered earlier. The High Court set aside both impugned orders and remitted the matters to the writ court for fresh hearing on limitation grounds within sixty days, without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matters remanded to writ court for fresh decision within sixty days; no costs; liberty to parties to file relevant provisions and raise all grounds.

The Superintending Engineer/ Member Convenor and 3… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

i ll i I I i .i f

¶2

[³⁴³⁰¹

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶4

THURSDAY,^{THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICESUJOY PAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI}

¶7

WRIT APPEAL^{NO:420 & 510 0F 2021}

¶8

w.A.No.420 OF²⁰²¹

¶9

WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentAgainsttheorderDated ercsio21^{in w.P. No. 18863of 2021 on the file of the High court'}

¶10

Between:

¶11

1 . Nylam Narsing am, S/o Kanakaiah,^Ag ed about 43 vears Occ.^{Agriculture,Rl/o} Mulkanoor Village,^{Chigurumamidi} Mandal, Kaiimnagar^{District. (Award} No.6/1981^-82 dt^30/5/81 )

¶12

Nvlam Mahender,^{S/o Rajaiah, Aged about34 years,Occ Agriculture'-Ryo} ' iftH;|il v,ii"di, B"Xi;iiMihorj, Siddipet Disirict (Award No 6/1e81-82 dt 30is/1981 )

¶13

Burra Srihari,^{S/o Narayana,Agedabout} .48-^{years, Occ Agriculture'. Fyo} " C;i;il Mrif<anoo, Viffig",-'Cf,igrrumamidi Niandal, Karimangar District. (Award No.2/1978-79^{dt 23-3-1979)}

¶14

4.BurraSrinivas,S/oKanakaiah,Agedabout32.years'Occ'Agriculture'-Rl/o Hno. ro-i7l'l , bripuram^{doni:Bdmmakal,Karirinaga(AwardNo B/81-82 dt} 30/6/81)

¶15

Burra Satyanarayna,^{S/o Hanmuiah, M/o Mallawa Aoed about 44 Yeats'} Occ. Aoricutture, Fyo^{M-ant6nOriViflugu and ManballKarimnagarDistrict} (Award^{-No.8/1983-84} dt 29l8l84)

¶16

Burra Prem Kumar,^{Sio Rajaiah, Aged about-31years'Occ Unemloyee' Fl/o} " il;;I,;"dr;viiiJge'ano ryriitaii,'rr-,-n'sar Distiict (Award No 8/1e83-84 dt 28tBl84)

¶17

Katti Thirupathi,^{S/o Venkati,Aged about45 years' Occ' AgrlqYl-tyr-e'^F/9} ' ivr?rr,.j"ii,ilViiils" ino tviino'ai,-kiri*nasar Disirict (Award No.8/1981-82 dt 30/6/91)

¶18

Katti Thirupathi,^{S/o Shankaraia.h,Aged about 40.years' Occ' Aglic.t'!t^ure..f/o} " ivr?"r.i,iirlViiiise ,nO-r,iJnOit,'t<riirnagar Distiict(Award No.B/1981-82 dt 30/6i 1981 )

¶19

" Vadiakonda n;;iil;;,-ir,i.*rprr-rvr-un-oli,"rriin.,"ng"..^{Sridhar,S/o Sattaiah,Aged about.36} District (Award^years, No'2/1e82-83^{occ. Employee,} dt 20l5182)

¶20

.--.----..'

¶21

i I

¶22

Nyalam Satislr. S/o Laxmaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Employee, R/o Mank^ondur Virlage and Mandal. Karimnagar Distiict (Award tto.OTt S-S t _bZ Ot 30/5/81)

¶23

'1 1 . Gajjala-Samprrth, S/o G.Komuraiah, Aged about 43 years, Unemployee, Fl,/o H..No. 2-36, M_unjampally -VJIlage, Manakondur tvlandal, (arimangar' Oistrict. (Award No.3/1 977-78 dt23t3t76)

¶24

'12. Nylam Kishan S/o Komuraiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Unemploee R/o H.No. 1-6214, tr/ulkanoor^Village,^{-Chigurumamirii} lvlandal, Karimnblar Dist. (Award No.6/1,381-82 dt 30/5/8i)

¶25

'13.K Sammaiah,Il/o Sailu, Aged- about 36 years Occ. Unemployee, R:/o H.No. 5_ 16, Yq1qlg.t{"Lt^{Village and Mandat Ka'rimnagar District(A,ivard ruo. 2t7_tg} dated 231311979)

¶26

...APPELLANTS

¶27

AND

¶28

1 The Superintendrng Engineer/Member Convenor, G.V.Circle-lV, (SRSp Orgn), L.N/.D Colony, Karimnagar Dist.

¶29

2 The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Selection Committee, S.R.S. project, LMD Colony, Karimnagar.

¶30

3 The District Co lector-cum-Chairman, Selection Committee, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dis;t.

¶31

4 The State of Te,langana, Rep,,Qy its principal Secretary, lrrigation and Command Area Development Diept., Secr6tariat, UyOeraOad,

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

Counsel for the Appellants : SRt cUDl MADHUSUDHAN REDDY

¶34

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SpL.Gp attached to . the office of the ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (TG)

¶35

W.A.No.S10 OF 2021

¶36

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent against the order dated O'110712021 inW.P No 4'1 64 of 2019 on the file of the High Court

¶37

Between:

¶38

1 The Superintending Enoineeri Member.Convenor, G.V. Circle_lV. ( SRSP. gp_,I Kanmnagar _1, y, ?S, D,sr ! ro rict. Karimnagar n!, .1^rrr6wrenameo District.^{a Jr} "igiiio n-ci rJe N o- 2 i [. lrri.'o' ci'roi'v,

¶39

2 The Administralor-cum-chief Engineer, selection committee s R s proiect (Now Engineer.in-Chief, trrigation, Kirimnagar) LMD Colont, kurir.is;ti District.

¶40

The District corrector-cum-chairman, selection committee Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. .

¶41

The state of relanoana. rep by its principal secretary r and cAD Department, Secretariat Hyde;ra6ad

...APPELLANTS

,:i:i.

AND

N/ Srikanth, S/o^{tVlallesham aged about27 years, UnemployedFUo H No 9-5-} 1 8O/8/A, Shivanagar^{Ramnagar Karimnagar Karimnagar District}

¶46

...RESPONDENTS

¶47

IANO:2 OF^2Q21

¶48

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} suspend the order^{daled011O712021 in W.P.No. 4164of 2019 pending disposal of} the writ appeal.

¶49

Counsel for the^{Appellant: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL.GPattachedto} . the office ofthe ADDL ADVOCATE^{GENERAL (TG)}

¶50

Counsel for the^{Respondents:SRI M.RAMGOPAL RAO}

¶51

The Courtmade^{the following:COMMON JUDGMENT}

¶52

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶53

AND

¶54

THE HON'BLE Dt. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶55

WRIT APPEAL Nos.42O & 51O of 2O2l

¶56

COMMON JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble SP,J)

¶57

Sri G Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellarrts in W.A.No.42O of 2027, Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent(s) in W.,{.No.420 of 2O2l and for the appellants in W.A.No.S1O of 2O2l and Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for respondent in W.A.No.51O of 2021.

¶58

Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, matters rvere finally heard.

¶59

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties reached 1.o a consensus. It is agreed that in W.p.No.4164 of 2O19, u,hile fiLng counter, respondent No. 1 in paragraph Nos. 1O and 12 placed heary reliance on memo dated 14.05.2O10, to bolster^{</sup> a the submission that the said memo was never considered in the previous round of litigation and in the light of said memo, the appellants clairn is barred by limitation. Since this point has not been consicierec. it is agreed that impugned orders in both the}

'.:^j'rr-iari

appeals may be set aside and the matter may be restored in the hle of the writ court by giving riberty to the parties to fire relevant legal provisions etc. The Writ Court may be requested to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties.

¶64

In view of consensus arrived at, the impugled order dated 12.08.2021 in W.A.No.42O of 2O2l is set aside and the common order dated o1.o7.2021 in w.A.No.Slo of 2o2r is set aside to the extent of W.P.No.4164 of 2019. Liberty as prayed for is given to the parties to file relevant legal provisions before the writ court. The Writ Court is requested to re-hear the parties ald decide the matters expeditiously, preferably within sixty days from today. The parties are at liberty to raise all possible grounds .

¶65

Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases. No costs

¶66

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand

¶67

closed.

¶68

!L, ,--.

¶69

To,

¶70

SD/-B.SAWAVATHI D TYREGTSTRAR //TRUE^COPY// ECTION OFFICER

¶71

1 The Superintending^Engi neer/Member^{Convenor,G V'Circle-lV'(SRSP} orgn), L.M.D.ColonY,^Ka rimnagar^Dist

¶72

Selection^{Committee,S'R S Project'}

¶73

1. The Administrator-cum-Chief^Engineer' LMD ColonY,^Karimnagar'

¶74

The District^{Collector-cum-Chairman' Selection Committee' Karimnagar'} Karimnagar^Dist.

¶75

The Principal^{Secretary, lrrigation,and-CommandArea Development Dept '} State of T6langana'^{Secretariat'HyderaDao'}

¶76

One CC^{to SRI GUDI IIADHUSUDHAN REDDY'Advocate' TOPUC]}

¶77

I I i

¶78

One CC to SFll w.RAMGOPAL RAO, Advocate. tOpUCl 7. Two CCs to ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶79

B, fhe Section Officer, Writ-Service Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyd erabad.

¶80

The section officer, Posting section, High court for the State of relangana at Hyderabad.

¶81

Two CD Copir:s.

BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910112025

g s'tA iQ
1
'iz
1s l[\ lffl
.J
il i,'

¶88

JUDGMENT

¶89

WA.No.420 o12021 +-. L^.,F^r\o 6LC^I r.-zt

¶90

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS

¶91

^..ofd
9<"
a-J ,

The Superintending Engineer/ Member Convenor and 3 others v. M Srikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintending Engineer/ Member Convenor and 3 others v. M Srikanth

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

Smt.Bharathi Johanna Vs The Government of Telangana

Smt.Bharathi Johanna Vs Sri B.Venkateswar Rao IAS

M/s Sentini Cermica Private Limited Vs The Central Board of Direct Taxes

M/s Mobi Impex Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

Gardenia Ventures Vs Income Tax Officer

M/s Prajay Properties Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax