Telangana High Court
WP/3662/2001 of R.Devadas Vs The Chairman on 26 December 2006
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3662 OF 2001 Between: R. Devadas ..... Petitioner AND The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad. .....Respondent :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : None Dated: 26.12.2006 Per
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.
Conclusion
HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICEAND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 3662OF2001
Between:R. Devadas..... PetitionerANDThe Chairman,State Level Police Recruitment Board,Hyderabad. .....Respondent:: O R D E R ::Counsel for the petitioner : None Dated: 26.12.2006
Per G.S.SINGHVI, CJ
In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to allow him to take part in the writtenexamination to be held on 04.03.2001 for recruitment of AdditionalPublic Prosecutors, Grade-II.
Since no one has appeared for the petitioner, it is reasonableto presume that he is not interested in pursuing his cause. Hence,the writ petition is dismissed in default.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 4715of 2001 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed.
G.S.SINGHVI, CJ
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
The above recapitulation of facts and tabular statement of the orderspassed in different cases makes it clear that on account of the interim ordersof status quo passed by this Court in the writ petitions filed by the appellants,respondent No.2 could not undertake the exercise for passing award inrespect of Ac.11-96 cts. The last order of status quo was passed on 19-5-1993 in WPMP No.8430 of 1993 in Writ Petition No.6653 of 1993. That petitionwas finally dismissed on 25-3-1996 and the award was passed on 12-3-1998. Therefore, by virtue of the explanation appearing below Section 11A, theperiod during which the proceedings in furtherance of declaration made underSection 6 remained stayed is liable to be excluded in computing the period oftwo years specified in Section 11A.
In Abhey Ram’s case (supra), a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question somewhat similar to the one raised in these appeals. The factual matrix of that case