M. Santhosh Goud, v. The State Of Telangana,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION Nos.47, 96 and 573 of 2018 COMMON ORDER:

As the issue raised in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the parties. 2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.82 of 2018 and batch, dated 20.03.2019 and similar orders be passed in the present writ petitions. 4.

Counsel for petitioners submit that in W.P.No.82 of 2018 and batch, when the provisional selection of petitioners was cancelled vide proceedings dated 13.06.2017 without assigning any reasons, this Court was pleased to set aside the said cancellation orders by allowing those writ petitions, however, with liberty to the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners in terms of the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others1.

5.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents has also not disputed the said fact.

1 (2016) 8 SCC 471

AKS, J W.P.Nos.47, 96 & 573 of 2018 6.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the impugned cancellation orders are liable to be set aside.

7.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned cancellation orders. The respondents are allowed to consider the cases of petitioners afresh in terms of the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra) and pass appropriate orders within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 10th June, 2019 ajr