Telangana High Court
WP/24240/2004 of M. Penchalaiah, Vs The Honble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. on 29 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24240 of 2004 Between: M.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 24240 of 2004
Between:
M. Penchalaiah, S/o. Penchalaiah,
R/o. Boddecharla Harijanawada, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa Dsitrict.
..... PETITIONER
AND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. rep by its Registrar(Administration).(Administration).2. The Hon'ble District Judge, Kadapa District, Kadapa.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not considering thepetitioner to the post of process server/Attender pursuant to his selection to the saidpost notified in the notification No. 1/1999 issued by the 2nd Respondent asarbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and contrary to Law and consequently direct the 2ndRespondent to appoint the petitioner to the said post under SC category in theexisting vacancies, with all consequential benefits, including notional seniority andother attendant benefits monetary and otherwise.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.JAGAPATHI
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY S.C. for A.P. HighCourt ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice)
Even if, as alleged by the petitioner, he was brought in the selected list forbeing appointed to the post of Process Server, the petitioner cannot claim thatdirections must be issued to appoint him to the post of Process Server pursuant tohis selection. Mere inclusion of a person’s name in the selected list does not conferany right on such person to seek directions for appointment. Whether or not therespondents have to fill up all the posts is at the discretion of the respondents. Veryvague allegations without any foundation have been made by the petitioner that lessmeritorious candidates have been appointed without mentioning their names.Without mentioning their names, it is very strange how the petitioner could havemade such allegations that persons who are less meritorious have been appointed.We find no substance in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.
___________________
DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ
29-12-2004
_____________________
M.NARAYANA REDDY, J
tvr
To
1. The Hon’ble the Registrar (Administration) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.
2. The District Judge, Kadapa District, Kadapa.
3. 2 CCs to the Standing Counsel for the High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT).(OUT).
4. The Section Officer, Legal Cell, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)
5. 2 CD copies.