Telangana High Court
CC/1889/2013 of B.Rajanna Vs Sri Hemanth Kumar Yadav, on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1889 OF 2013 ORDER: The Contempt Case is filed alleging that the directions issued by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.12256 of 2012 in W.P.No.27141 of 2011, dated 23.04.2012, are not complied with by the respondent herein. It is not in dispute that the
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.
Conclusion
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMARCONTEMPT CASE No.1889 OF 2013
ORDER:
The Contempt Case is filed alleging that the directions issuedby this Court in W.P.M.P.No.12256 of 2012 in W.P.No.27141 of 2011,dated 23.04.2012, are not complied with by the respondent herein.
It is not in dispute that the Writ Petition filed by the 3[rd]respondent and others was dismissed.
Sri N. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitsthat one BC-B candidate, by name, Tippani Tirupati secured 59 marksand another OC candidate, by name, Pannala Narayana Reddysecured 43 marks. However, the name of Pannala Narayana Reddy isshown against OC vacancy. It is further submitted that since the BC-Bcandidate, Tippani Tirupati, secured highest marks, he should haveshown against OC vacancy and further the petitioners herein are not allotted anymarks in the interview and they are shown as ‘not eligible’.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submitsthat since the petitioners did not produce original certificates at thetime of interview, they were shown as ‘not eligible’. He further submitsthat Sri Tippani Tirupati may be a service candidate and moreover theselection process is over and selected candidates have alreadyjointed into service, it appears that it may not be reasonable to disturbthe selections that have already been completed, when the selectedcandidates have joined the service.
In that view of the matter, it is clear that by not allotting anymarks in the interview, the respondent Bank seems to have shown discrimination towards the petitioners.
In the above circumstances, petitioners 1, 2 and 4 are directedto submit the original certificates to the respondent Bank on22.02.2015 and on submission of such certificates, the respondentBank shall create supernumerary posts and pass necessary ordersgiving appointment to petitioners 1, 2 and 4 and as and when regularvacancies arise, the petitioners shall be absorbed into those posts.
Subject to the observation made supra, the Contempt Case isclosed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Contempt Case,shall stand closed.
_________________________
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J
29.12.2014KH