Dismissed

Dr. Mohd. Khaja Ahmed Hussain v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Apr 2025WP(TR)/516/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Adjunct Court reiterated that a Writ Petition filed for employment in backlog posts was listed for dismissal default. Finding no representation on the day of listing, the Court dismissed the petition for default without costs and struck off incidental applications.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed for default. All pending miscellaneous applications were struck off.

Dr. Mohd. Khaja Ahmed Hussain Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

H|GH couR r r3I,l?S.IiJiDoF

¶2

TELANGANA

¶3

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶4

'fr1?6!n'J,'.i.".oriilliflA,?ip,iE,,_

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE

¶7

HONOURABLE SRt JUSflCE NATUAVARAPU

¶8

RAJESHWAR RAO ITPETITtoN TR NO 516 OF 2017

¶9

Between: 7

¶10

ig##iHi#rffi,yi#s:?i?..f#B,s"yRil1#x,*?Biiy.iiiri%?

¶11

AND ...pETl,oNER

¶12

#Xi.rgj#&',l,#Ei;B"H[#H,ii.""ff

¶13

,#i,l:,f"fl i:lz?l:,ff .:?:[BBl

¶14

;.{[ii,',t$Sl[11t;:L1%"fl,fti,"#[.:',1,.,I1il]fl?iti5;?:B?l 4. The Commissioner for il IJffi J"",isrdll#'iJ;J,,u"?,ix?xy,,i"1{Ei,

¶15

. ;;6iii#*.,H^,. 1., ' ,{:fi,fl1I,.iii:9r"33 rt311, Vidhana parishad, Rep by its commissioner,

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution .^{of lndia praying that} in the circumstances stated in the affidavit nr"J in"r"*iin, the High court mav be pteased to issue to issue 1n orggl or Oiieciion,"Olc[re tfre Rute 4 of the Anlhra Pradesh Medical Education.and Huurtn tou"irri6"r"u Rutes and Rule g(.1 ) ot the Andhra^pradesh Vaidya^Vidhan, prn"h"J'6lrJile Rutes, white filing ,p dtin" existing posts of Assistant f roigssgr (Dentar) unJer"iure 3 0f the Andhra pradesh Medical Education and Heatth 1O"ntrrl-deirillr'nrfu.,,as iilegat, urft,tiiy, contrary to Rule 22 (2) (b) of the Andhra praOeJstate and Service Rules, 1996 and unconstitutionar' and consequenry direct the respondents, to issue notification for filling up the backlog posts under p-nysicatiy tran-O]iappeO quota.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. J.K.ANITHA

¶19

counser for the Respondent Nos.1 To 3: Gp FoR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: Gp FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M.p.K.ADITYA, SC FOR TWp

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

R M^v

¶22

¶23

ORDER: . ,-^^ ,,^ fnr he araring^{on .11.03.2025,} When^{the matter was taken up for} there^{was no representationon behalf of the t"til""l--} Therefore,^{the matterwasdirectedto be listed on 11'04'2025 under} the^{caption 'for dismissal"ln spite of the matter beinr; listed under} the caption.for^{dismissar,,today arso,thereis no reprosentation on} behalf^{of the petitloner'It appearsthat the petitioner is not having} any^{lnterest to prosecute the matter'}

¶24

Accordingly,^{this WritPetition isdi:;missedfor} default.However,ifthepetitionerhasanygrievance,heisat liberty to^{approach the Court' There shall be no orderes to costs'}

¶25

ASaSeqUel,miscellaneousapplicationspending,ifany,inthis

¶26

Writ Petition,^{shall slqnd clesell}

¶27

¶28

SD/. A. JAYASREE \ ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ffl'' i<sup>{secttoNoFFlcER \l

¶29

To I . One CC to M/s.^{J.K.ANITHA, Advocate [OPUCI Y} 2 . i;; dd.i"'cc^{Fon ureoicAf nEAiliia rw, Hish courtfor the stateof} Telanqana, at^{Hyderabad.[OUT]} o;;'bt i; sRi^{(,,r.i.x.notrvn.Sc roR rwP} [oPUC 4 . i;; cc;io cp ron seRvrcrS-L HiSl', Courlf'or the Slate of Telaigana, at Hyderabad. IOUTI Two CD Copies

PSK, GJP

HIGH^COURT

DATED:1^110412025

ORDER

WP(TR).No.S16^o12017

( C,{ -'iiiE s r,rl
oJ (
I u JUL 2Il25 ,, ,I
)

¶36

DrsMlsslNG^{THE WRIT PETITIoN(TR)} Fon oerAuLT^{wlrHour cosrs}

¶37

)

Dr. Mohd. Khaja Ahmed Hussain v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Mohd. Khaja Ahmed Hussain v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.M.v.Subba Rao Vs The State of Telangana

K. Radhakrishnama Radhakrishnama Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Bonala Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana

R. Sarayya Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal

T. Jaishankar Vs The State of Telangana

Safia Sultana Vs The State of Telangana