Telangana High Court
WP/3334/2001 of Smt.R.M.Sampath Kumari Vs The Chairman on 26 December 2006
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3334 OF 2001 Between: R.M. Sampath Kumari ..... Petitioner AND The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad & another .....Respondents :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri
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. 3334 OF2001
Between:
R.M. Sampath Kumari
..... Petitioner
AND
The Chairman,State Level Police Recruitment Board,Hyderabad & another
.....Respondents
:: O R D E R ::
Counsel for the petitioner : Shri K. Venkatesulu 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 consider her case for appointment asAdditional Public Prosecutor.
Shri K. Venkatesulu, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner says that the writ petition has become infructuous and thesame may be disposed of as such. Ordered accordingly.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos. 4270and 4271 of 2001 filed by the petitioner for interim relief aredismissed.
G.S.SINGHVI, CJ
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
26.12.2006ksld
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