Telangana High Court
WP/19599/1999 of S.VISHALI HYDERABAD Vs RPO HYDERABAD on 7 December 1999
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ***** WRIT PETITION No.19599 of 2000 Between: Kumada Govardhan ... Petitioner. AND Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation, represented by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, UNI Buildings,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
*****
WRIT PETITION No.19599 of 2000
Between:
Kumada Govardhan
... Petitioner.
AND
Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation,represented by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, UNIBuildings, 10-1-1200, III Floor, A.C. Guards,Hyderabad and another.
...Respondents.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
1Whether Reporters of Local newspapers mayYes/Nobe allowed to see the Judgments?
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMARWRIT PETITION No.19599 of 2000Date:03.08.2015Between:Kumada Govardhan... Petitioner.ANDAndhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation,represented by itsVice-Chairman and Managing Director, UNIBuildings, 10-1-1200,III Floor, A.C. Guards,Hyderabad and another....Respondents.
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.19599 of 2000
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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:
This writ petition is filed to issue a writ directing more in the nature ofmandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not preparing the finalseniority list for the post of Junior Supervisors under the control of secondrespondent duly giving effect to G.O.Ms.No.93, Social Welfare Department, dated22-4-1987, is highly arbitrary illegal and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of theConstitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents to implement theorders of Government and also as per the law laid down by the Apex Court inGENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY vs. RANGACHARI reported in (AIR1962 SC 36).
2. Petitioner herein was working as Supervisor in Paderu Division, Narsipatnam,Visakhapatnam District of A.P. Forest Development Corporation Limited andaccording to him, the second respondent is wrong in not following the G.O., issuedby the Forest Department for implementing reservation in promotions, which is theirconstitutional obligation. According to petitioner, during 1980, his name wassponsored through Employment Exchange, Visakhapatnam for Grade-II JuniorSupervisor in the Forest Department and he was selected through writtenexamination, oral and physical tests. According to petitioner, G.O.Ms.No.93, SocialWelfare Department, dated 22-4-1987, equally applicable to the second respondentalso and they are bound to implement it from the date of G.O., and their inaction innot implementing the G.O., made him to file the present writ seeking a specificdirection in the nature of mandamus. Second respondent filed counter contending that it is a autonomous body, unless the board which administers the secondrespondent passes a resolution adopting the G.O., issued by Forest Department, itcannot be made applicable to the employees of Forest Development Corporationand the board in its 80[th] Meeting held on 03-07-1989 passed a resolution approvingthe implementation of G.O., from that date onwards, they are implementing the saidG.O.
3. Heard Arguments.
4. Now the only contention is that according to petitioner that G.O., has to beimplemented from 24-08-1987, but the fact remains that G.O., is being implementedfrom 03-07-1989. Since the second respondent has given convincing reasons for notimplementing the G.O., from 24-08-1987, I am of the view that the objection ofpetitioner is not tenable. On a consideration of material on record, I feel that no further orders are necessary in this writ petition and the same can bedisposed of by observing as second respondent has implemented G.O., from 03-07-1989 grievance of petitioner is taken care.
5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
6. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand disposed of.
Date:03.08.2015
mrb
__________________________
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR