Telangana High Court
WP/14911/2005 of SMT. TADI NAGALAKSHMI Vs THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC., KURNOOL AND ANOTHER on 28 December 2018
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 14911 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in any vacancy and rejecting the same
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.
Arguments
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 14911 of 2005
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in any vacancy and rejecting the same vide order dated 28.07.1997, as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction is also sought to the respondents to provide any job to the petitioner or her son.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the husband of the petitioner was employed with the respondent corporation and he expired on 08.11.1994 while discharging his duties. Thereafter, she submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent corporation had rejected the case of the petitioner vide order dated 28.07.1997 on the ground that there was ban on appointments. The learned counsel further contended that the cases of similarly situated persons were considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, but the respondent corporation rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground that there was ban.
On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation has contended that at the relevant point of time, there was ban on appointments and the case of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed, in accordance with law.
This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and upon receiving such representation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in four weeks thereafter.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 28[th] December, 2018 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Writ Petition No.14911 of 2005 (disposed of)
28[th] December, 2018