Telangana High Court
WP/29323/2013 of S.Chenna Reddy Vs Dr. Y.S.R. Horticultural University, rep. by its Registrar, on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29323 of 2013 Date: 30.12.2013 Between : S.Chenna Reddy and others .… Petitioners and Dr.Y.S.R. Horticultural University, rep. by its Registrar, Admn. Office, Venkataramannagudem, West Godavari District. …. Respondent THE COURT MADE
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
WRIT PETITION No.29323 of 2013
Date: 30.12.2013
Between :
S.Chenna Reddy and others
.… Petitioners
and
Dr.Y.S.R. Horticultural University, rep. by itsRegistrar, Admn. Office, Venkataramannagudem,West Godavari District.
…. Respondent
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALIWRIT PETITION No.29323 of 2013
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:
Having regard to the short relief sought for by thepetitioners to direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders onthe representations dated 20.09.2013 submitted by the petitionerswithin a time frame, this writ petition is being disposed of at theadmission stage after hearing Sri B.Nagi Reddy, learned counselappearing for the petitioners as well as Sri C.Srinivasa Baba,learned Standing Counsel for respondent.
2. The petitioners state that they have been working asAgricultural Extension Officers in the Horticulture ResearchStations at different places in the State and have become eligiblefor being appointed as Special Promotion Post-1 scale. All thepetitioners have put in 12 years of service. They submittedrepresentations dated 20.09.2013 to the respondent with a requestto regularize their services in the said post. The grievance of thepetitioners is that though considerable time has elapsed, therespondent has not taken any action.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondentis not likely to consider the representations within a reasonabletime, in which event, the petitioners would suffer great hardship. The learned counsel, therefore, seeks a direction to therespondent to pass appropriate orders on the said representationswithin a time frame.
4. Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned Standing Counsel submits thatthe Board of Management which is competent to award the scaleshas not been constituted. He, therefore, submits that therepresentations of the petitioners will be considered soon after theconstitution of the Board of Management.
5. In the light of the aforesaid facts, without expressing anyopinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed ofdirecting the respondent to consider the representations dated20.09.2013 submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriateorders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible,preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
6. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36425 of2013 is dismissed as unnecessary.
________________________
JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALIDate: 30.12.2013.TJMR
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
TJMR
WRIT PETITION No.29323 of 2013
Date: 30.12.2013