Telangana High Court
WP/34037/2011 of D.A.Krishna, Vs The APSRTC, Rep.by Executive Director (HCZ), on 29 December 2011
COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 34037 OF 2011 Between: D.A. Krishna … Petitioner V/s. APSRTC Represented by its Executive Director (HCZ)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO.34037 OF 2011
Between:D.A. Krishna … Petitioner V/s.
APSRTC Represented by itsExecutive Director (HCZ)JBS/PICKET, Secunderabad & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G. Praveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K. Madhava Reddy SC for APSRTC
The Court made the following : (Order follows next page)
WRIT PETITION NO.34037 OF 2011
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:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedstanding counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus todeclare the action of the respondents in not providing employment in thecorporation for the post of conductor, as he was selected as per theselection list dated 06-05-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct therespondents to provide him employment in the post of conductor in therespondent-corporation as per the selection list dated 06-05-2009 and panelNo. 487 issued by the respondents and to pass such other suitable ordersas this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected for the post ofconductor and was sent a call letter. Thereafter, he was sent for medicalexamination and was found fit in the medical examination. But due tomisfortune he fell ill. It is stated that the first respondent addressed a letter on 06-5-2009 to the third respondent duly enclosing the selection listwherein his name is figured at serial No.1 in the selection list. While thingsstood thus, he suffered from jaundice and could not report within time to therespondent-depot. It is stated that he took some ayurvedic and herbalmedicines. Thereafter, he suffered from Amebosis and took treatmentfrom 2009 to 2010 and he filed medical certificate in proof thereof. It isfurther stated that after recovery from illness, he approached the thirdrespondent and he was orally informed that his case will be considered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionerwas selected on 06-05-2009, since he could not report to duty in time dueto his prolonged illness and that there was lapse on the part of thepetitioner. However, it is for the respondent-corporation to consider thecase of the petitioner, in the event if he makes any representation.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the writ petition isdisposed of directing the petitioner to make a representation afresh to thesecond respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order and thereafter it is open for the respondents to examine the caseof the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within aperiod of four weeks, thereafter.
6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at thestage of admission. No costs.
---------------------------------------- JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
29-12-2011I s L
WRIT PETITION NO. 34037 OF 2011
CIRCULATION NO. 31Date:29-12-2011Court Master: I s LComputer No. 43