Telangana High Court
WP/40458/2014 of Vadranapu Mahesh, Vs The Deputy General Manager, on 30 December 2014
R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.40458 of 2014 Date: 30-12-2014 Between Vadranapu Mahesh and another … Petitioners and The DGM, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Vijayawada, Krishna District; and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.40458 of
Date: 30-12-2014
Between
Vadranapu Maheshand another
… Petitioners
and
The DGM, Syndicate Bank,Regional Office, Vijayawada,Krishna District;and another … Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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.
Order:
Heard Sri P.Vara Prasad, learned counsel appearingfor the petitioners.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare theaction of the 1[st] respondent in not allowing the petitionersto appear for written test/interview for selection andappointment to the posts of Temporary Attenders ashighly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in State of Bihar
v. Upendra Narayan Singh[[1]]and consequently, to directthe respondents to consider the case of petitioners forselection and appointment to the posts of TemporaryAttenders without insisting that the names of thepetitioners should be sponsored by the EmploymentExchange.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that the petitioners have registered their names inthe Employment Exchange, Vijayawada, Krishna District. He further submits that on the requisition made by the 1[st]respondent, the 2[nd] respondent sponsored certain namesfor the purpose of appointment to the posts of TemporaryAttenders, but the names of the petitioners were notsponsored.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that even if thenames of the petitioners are not sponsored by theEmployment Exchange, the 1[st] respondent has to makean advertisement and call for the applications from theeligible candidates so as to enable them to appear for theinterview. I n Upendra Narayan Singh (1 supra), theSupreme Court took the view that the employer shall notrestrict the eligible candidates to those who are sponsoredby the Employment Exchange and the applications fromthe eligible candidates have to be called for by makingpublication in the News Papers.
5. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court inUpendra Narayan Singh (1 supra), the respondents aredirected to permit the petitioners to appear for the writtentest/interview for selection and appointment to the post ofTemporary Attenders.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at theadmission stage. The miscellaneous petitions, if any,pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
30[th] December, 2014.
Ak
___________________
R.KANTHA RAO, J.
[1](2009) 5 SCC 65
30[th] December, 2014.(Ak)