Vijaya Lakshmi Veeramalla v. Telangana State Public Service Commission,(Tspsc)

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.1119 of 2017 Date:08.8.2017 Between:

Vijaya Lakshmi Veeramalla, D/o V.Vengalaiah and seven others.

..... Appellants And:

Telangana State Public Service Corporation (TSPSC), reptd by its Secretary, Hyderabad and seven others.

.....Respondents Counsel for the appellants: Mr. J.Sudheer The Court made the following:

CVNR, J & GSP, J W.A.No.1119 of 2017 Dated:08.8.2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal arises out of order, dated 28.6.2017, in WPMP.No.25853 of 2017 in Writ Petition No.21031 of 2017, whereby the learned single Judge while declining to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the Provisional List of the main re-examination for Group-I Services (Limited and General Recruitment), dated 01.6.2017, of the combined State of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), now Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC), adjourned the said Miscellaneous Petition by three weeks with the observation that any further proceedings taken by respondent No.1 in pursuance of the afore-mentioned Provisional List shall be subject to further orders in the said Miscellaneous Petition.

At the hearing, Mr. J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that respondent No.1 has committed many irregularities in conducting the main re-examination such as identification of less posts than that were allocated to the State of Telangana, permitting ineligible candidates to appear for the main re-examination, issuing fresh hall tickets and fixing the ratio of 1:50 for main re-examination.

Inasmuch as the said Writ Petition is pending before the learned single Judge and a counter-affidavit is yet to be filed by respondent No.1, it is neither possible nor appropriate to

CVNR, J & GSP, J W.A.No.1119 of 2017 Dated:08.8.2017 adjudicate on the various aspects raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the Appeal. Though the learned single Judge has declined to grant an interim order, he has, however, subjected all further steps that may be taken by respondent No.1 in pursuance of the afore-mentioned Provisional List to further orders in the said Miscellaneous Petition.

In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned single Judge at this stage. The appellants are permitted to pursue the said Miscellaneous Petition before the learned single Judge. Having regard to the importance of the matter and the urgency involved, we are sure that the learned single Judge will give priority to the hearing of the said Miscellaneous Petition as soon as respondent No.1 files its counter-affidavit. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, WAMP.No.2127 of 2017 filed by the appellant for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

_____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY ________________________ JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD 08th August 2017 DR