Telangana High Court
WP/22690/1996 of A.MOHAN BABU AND ANOTHER Vs THE N.U.REP.REGR. GNT.AND ANOTHER on 29 November 2002
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22690 of 2006 Dated 20th December, 2006 Between B.Venugopal Reddy …Petitioner and Government of AP, rep. By its Secretary, Municipal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 22690 of 2006
Dated 20[th] December, 2006
BetweenB.Venugopal Reddy
…Petitioner
and
Government of AP, rep. By its Secretary,Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors …Respondent.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
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.
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION NO : 22690 of 2006
The petitioner, an Assistant Divisional Engineer (Civil) in theOffice of the second respondent-AP TRANSCO, was sent ondeputation to the third respondent-Municipal Corporation of Guntur asDeputy Executive Engineer vide order dated 30-06-2005 in G.O.Rt.No.982, for a period of one year. It is the case of the petitioner that thoughorders dated 30-6-2005 were issued, but there was no vacancy till 12-07-2006. It is the grievance of the petitioner that as much as thepetitioner had been permitted to join on deputation on 12-07-2006, therespondents 1 and 2 ought to have extended the period of deputation.
When the matter is called to day, the learned Counsel appearingfor the first respondent has produced a copy of the order dated 4-11-2006 in Memo No.5999/C/2006-1 issued by the first respondent,wherein the request of the petitioner for extension of period ofdeputation was rejected. The period of deputation has to be extendedor not is for the employer and the petitioner will not have any right toseek extension of deputation. In that view of the matter, I do not seeany merit in this Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
----------------------------------
JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
DATE: 20-12-2006.Msnr.