Disposed

Kurma Laxman v. The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (Tslprb)

Telangana HC20 Jun 2025WP/29957/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a recruitment notification's age relaxation limit by allowing an interim application directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for review and provide a personal hearing within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider representation and provide personal hearing within 4 weeks.

Kurma Laxman Vs The Telangana State Level Police… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

132521

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY^{OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶7

t.A.No.1 of 2025

¶8

IN/AND

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO:29957^{OF 2023}

¶10

Between:

¶11

Kurma Laxman, S/o Kurma Srinivas,^{Aged about. 33 Yrs, Caste.BC--Q,O9q} un-employed, No 4-2t1,^{Ramaiahpally, Budhavarampeta, RamagiriMandal,} Peddapalii District, Telangana State^-PlN505184

¶12

..PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The Telangana State Leiel^{Police Recruitment Board(TSLPRB)' DGP Office} Complex, takdikapul, Hyderabad^{Rep. by its Chairman}

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary, HomeDepartment,} ' Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the^{constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, more^{particularly, onein the natureof} writ of Mandamus declaring the^{impugned MemoNo.990SlGenerallA2l2o23,} dt.o7.1o.2023^{passed by the 2nd respondentis as violation/deviationof Rule} 12(V) proviso is highly^{illegal, Void-ab-initioin deviationof Hon'bleApex court} Judgment extending^{period in all prospectsand petitionsis period of 90 days,} Age cap of 45 days is in^{deviation of the ordersand Rules there under} consequenfly declare^{clause of age cap on par at par notification issued dateby} TSLPRB. Otherwise, it^{will be violation of Article '14 and 16 0f the constitution of} lndia. As such struck down the^{clause B of sub clause a) in notification page} no.1 8 of 48 in regard age^{gapinlinewith the Rulel 2(V)proviso of the Telangana} State and subordinate Service^{Rules, 1996 and consequentlyto considerthe}

¶18

. representation of the Petitioner into selection process about the over age of 4s dqys/one month 1 4 days as per the notification No.41lRect/ Admn-112022, dt.25.4.2022.

¶19

1A NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Memo No.990sl GeneraltA2l2o23, dt.07.10.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent by considering application of the petitioner into selection process by virtue of relaxing the highly arbitrary aggrieved Rule-'l2(V) of the age criteria cut-off date with clause - 36 of the said notification; pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support df the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass order/orders by directing to Respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated: 08-02-2024 for reviewing speaking order vide Memo No.9905/ GenerallA2l2o23, dt.07.1o.2023 which was issued by the principal secretary to Government and with due respect of State Minister, Government of Telangana issued letters to respondents dated:1 5-0 2-2024 & 28-03-2024, pending the writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PONAMPELLI RAV|

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR SERVICES (HOME)

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HON,BLE^{MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

r NO o 20 I A D

w T ET .29 7 F 2

QRDER:

Heard Sri PonamPelli^{Ravi, learnedcounsel} appearing^{on behalf of the petitionerand the learned} Assistant^{GovernmentPleader for Services(Home)} appearing^{on behalf of the respondents'}

¶31

2 Th itio er a e hi Co rt e n he

¶32

Draver^{as under:}

¶33

"....to issue a^{Writ, Order or Direction' more} particularly, one^{in the nature of Writ of Mandamus} declaring the imPugned Memo No.9905/Gen^{eral/ A2/2023, dt'07'70'2023} passed by the^{2nd respondentis as violation/deviationof} Rule 12(V)^{proviso is highly illegal; Void-ab-initio in} deviation of Hon'ble^{APex Court Judgment} extending period in all^{prospects& petitions is} period of 90 days,^{Age caP of 45 daYs is in} deviation of the orders^{&Rules thereunder} consequently^{declare clause of age cap on par at} par notiflcation^{issued date by TSLPRB'Otherwise'} 16 of^the it will be violation^{of Articles14 and} Constitution^{of India. As such struck} down^the clause B of^{sub clause a) in notification page no' 18}

¶34

¶35

5N,J W.P.No.29957 2023

¶36

oF 48 in regard age gap in line with the Rule 12(V) proviso of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and consequently to consider the representation of the petitioner into selection process about the over age of 45 days/one month 14 days as per the notification No.41lRect/Admn7/2022, dt.25.4.2022 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'b.le Court, may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice. "

¶37

3. The Detitio er filed I.A.No. o1 ot 2025 seekinq praver as under:-

¶38

".....to pass order/orders by directing to respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 08.02.2024 for reviewing speaking order vide memo No.9905/General/A2/2023, dated 07.10.2023 which was issued by the principal Secretary to Government and with due respect of State Minister, Government of Telangana issued letters to respondents, dated 15.02.2024 & 28.03.2024...."

¶39

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to the prayer in LA.No.1 of 2025 in W.p.No.29957 of 2023 and contends that if I.A. No.1 of 2025 is allowed as

¶40

¶41

SN,] W.P.No.29957 2023

¶42

prayed for, the petitioner would not insist for the^prayer as sought for in the^main writ^petition

¶43

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents does^{not object for} allowing of I.A.No.1 of 2025 in the^{present writ petition as} prayed for.

¶44

6 TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:

¶45

A) The aforesaid fatts and circumstances of^the case,

¶46

B) The prayer as sought for in I.A.No.1 of 2O25ⁱⁿ the present writ^{petition (referred} to and^extracted and above),

¶47

C) The submissions made by the learned^counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioner and^{the learned} Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents^{and, upon} consent,

¶48

¶49

¶50

5N,J W.P-No.29957 2023

¶51

I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated Oa.O2.2O24 for reviewing the impugned speaking order vide memo No.99O5/ General/A2 12023, dated 07.10.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 in accordance to law in conformity with the principles of naiural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner herein.

¶52

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

¶54

closed.

¶55

SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶56

To,

¶57

Ii- L SECn6N oFFIcER

¶58

1 The chairman, Telanoana..state Lever porice Recruitment Board (TSLpRB), DGP Office Comptex,I_akdikaput, HyOtrab;4.'-"'-

¶59

2 The Principal Secretary. Home _Department, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. State of fetdngJn;.^{'- -}

¶60

3 One CC to SRt PONAMPELLT RAV|, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

4 One CC to SRt M.V.RA|,4A RAO, SC FOR TSLPRB [OPUC] 4 Two CCs to Gp FOR SERVICES (HO[UE), ' -^- -/i High^I ii,'|^I Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶62

o Two CD Copies BSR r?,9

CC TODAY

I-IIGH COURT

DATED: 2010612025

ORDER l.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND WP.No.29957 of 2023

¶68

lntro 14
Y
-t- 1g JUL zffi z

PArcrt

¶69

ALLOWING THE I.A. &

¶70

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

I
lq

Kurma Laxman v. The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (Tslprb)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurma Laxman v. The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (Tslprb)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 3 Others Vs K. Sudheer Rao (Died) as per LRs

K. Venu Kumar Vs The Commissioner of Police and 2 others

B Krishna Murali Vs The Singareni Colleries Company Limited

Venkatesham Velimineti, Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Shamshuddin Vs The State of Telangana

A.Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangna