Telangana High Court
WP/26738/2006 of P.P.Kumar, Vs The Assistant Director, Vigilence AND Security, on 26 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA Writ Petition No.26738 of 2006 Dated: 26th December, 2006 Between: P.P.Kumar. …..PETITIONER AND The Assistant Director, Vigilence & Security APSRTC, V;izianagaram and ors. ….RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P.No.26738 of 2006
Writ Petition No.26738 of 2006
Dated: 26th December, 2006
Between:
P.P.Kumar. …..PETITIONER
AND
The Assistant Director, Vigilence & Security APSRTC, V;izianagaram and ors. ….RESPONDENTS
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:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
W.P.No.26738 of 2006
Petitioner was appointed as Security Guard in the respondents Corporation on 25-10-1986 and presently working at Parwathipuram Depot under the control of the 1and 2[nd] respondents. Petitioner states that the Departmental selection committeemet in the month of November, 2006 and considered the cases of Security Guardsfor selection to the post of Security Head Guards by promotion and his name wasincluded in the list for consideration. He further states that he is the senior mostaspirant in the S.C. Category and there are two vacancies in the S.C. Category andthe criteria for selection is the seniority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner being the senior most inthe S.C. Category he should be selected under that category but the respondentswithout promoting him have arbitrarily promoted 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents who arejuniors to him vide proceeding dated 5-12-2006. However, he stated that thepetitioner filed representation on 14-12-2006 seeking consideration of his case forpromotion, but till date no orders were passed on the said representation.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned StandingCounsel for the respondents/APSRTC, and having regard to the fact that therepresentation dated 14-12-2006 made by the petitioner seeking consideration of hiscase for promotion is pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitionwith the following directions:
The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider and dispose of therepresentation dated 14-12-2006, said to have been made by the petitioner seekingconsideration of this case for promotion, expeditiously, within a period of two monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Nocosts.
_______________
(N.V. RAMANA, J.)
Date:26[th] December, 2006.
grk
Writ Petition No.26738 of 2006
Dated: 26th December, 2006