Telangana High Court
WP/18587/1993 of Smt. G.Uma Rani, Vs The Project Director, on 29 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.A.Nos.1174 and 1177 of 2005 and W.P.No.18587 of 1993 COMMON ORDER (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao): Heard both sides. Since the issue involved in all these matters is one and the same, they are
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
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
W.A.Nos.1174 and 1177 of 2005
and
W.P.No.18587 of 1993
COMMON ORDER(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao):
Heard both sides.
Since the issue involved in all these matters is one and the same, they are beingtaken up together for disposal.
The only question involved in all these matters is whether the writ petitioners areentitled for regularization of their services.
In the impugned common order dated 11-02-2004 in W.P. Nos. 13387 of 1993 and1937 of 1994, the learned single Judge observed that having regard to the orderspassed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.492, dated 11-10-1999 sanctioning 16posts for Mahabubnagar District, no further orders need be passed. It was furtherobserved that if for any reason, the services of any of the petitioners are not regularized as required under the saidG.O., their cases may be considered for regularization and accordingly the writpetitions were disposed of. In W.P.No.18587 of 1993, the relief sought for is alsovirtually the same.
The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Developmentappearing on behalf of the appellants represented that in the above mentioned writpetitions, some of the petitioners have already been considered and their serviceswere regularized and others are still pending for consideration.
In view of the above, it is not necessary to go into the merits at this stage and it is suffice to give a direction to the authorities concerned to consider the case of theremaining petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition and the writ appeals are closed subject to theabove condition. No order as to costs.
__________________
B. PRAKASH RAO, J
__________________
Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, JDate: 29-12-2005Isn