Telangana High Court
WP/26945/2006 of Koppala Panchalamma, Vs The District Collector and Magistrate, on 28 December 2006
SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26945 of 2006 Between: Koppala Penchalamma …… Petitioner. And District Collector, Nellore and others. …… Respondents. :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Sri
HON’BLE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICEANDHON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.26945 of 2006
Between:Petitioner.
Koppala Penchalamma ……
And
District Collector,Nellore and others.
……Respondents.
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.
:: O R D E R::
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.V.Narasimham 28[th] December, 2006
Per G.S. SINGHVI, C.J.
In this petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution, the petitioner has made the followingsubstantive prayer:
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaringthe action of respondent No.3 rejecting the case of thepetitioner for conversion as Anganwadi Worker from E.C.E.Instructor vide proceedings No.103/2003, dated 15-4-2003and consequential proceedings No.103/2004, dated 3-1-2005 of the 1[st] respondent in appointing 4[th] respondentagainst to the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary andviolation of principles of natural justice and set aside thesame and consequently direct the respondents to convertthe petitioner as Anganwadi Worker from E.C.E. Instructorforthwith with all consequential benefits and pass suchother order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit,proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”
We have heard Sri M.V.Narasimham, learned counselfor the petitioner and perused the record. In our opinion,the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the shortground that Writ Petition No.25842 of 2005 filed by thepetitioner for grant of identical relief was dismissed by thecoordinate bench on 31-7-2006 by relegating the petitionerto the remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985.
It is neither the pleaded case of the petitioner nor thelearned counsel has argued that order dated 31-7-2006passed in Writ Petition No.25842 of 2005 has been setaside by the Supreme Court or has been reviewed by theBench. Therefore, we do not find any justificationwhatsoever for entertaining the second petition, which hasto be dismissed as barred by res judicata. Orderedaccordingly. However, it is made clear that if thepetitioner is so advised, he may seek review of the orderpassed in Writ Petition No.25842 of 2005 by showing that a full bench of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunalhas declined to entertain the application filed by similarlysituated persons.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition,WPMP.No.34623 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interimrelief is also dismissed.
G.S.SINGHVI, C.J.
28[th] December, 2006
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
ARS