Telangana High Court
WP/40507/2014 of Sheik Abdul Azeez, Vs The Branch Manager, on 30 December 2014
R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.40507 of 2014 Date: 30-12-2014 Between Sheik Abdul Azeez … Petitioner and The Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikanur and Jaipur, Vijayawada, Krishna District; and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.40507 of
Date: 30-12-2014
Between
Sheik Abdul Azeez
… Petitioner
and
The Branch Manager,State Bank of Bikanur and Jaipur,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 petitioner.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare theaction of the 1[st] respondent in not allowing the petitionerto appear for written test/interview for selection andappointment to the post of Part-time Safai Karamchari ashighly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of theHon’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 petitioner forselection and appointment to the post of Part-time SafaiKaramchari without insisting that the name of thepetitioner should be sponsored by the EmploymentExchange.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that the petitioner has registered his name in theEmployment Exchange, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Hefurther submits that on the requisition made by the 1[st]respondent, the 2[nd] respondent sponsored certain namesfor the purpose of appointment to the post of Part-timeSafai Karamchari, but the name of the petitioner was notsponsored.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that even if thename of the petitioner is 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 in Upendra Narayan Singh (1 supra), the respondents aredirected to permit the petitioner to appear for the writtentest/interview for selection and appointment to the post ofPart-time Safai Karamchari.
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)