C Srinivasa Rao v. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Secretary,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.22460 OF 2018 DATED :04.07.2018 Between :

C.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.C.V.Naidu, Age 50 yrs, Occu : Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector, R/o.1-23-550, Rajivnagar Colony, Alwal, Secunderabad.

..

Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Secretary, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.S&V) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.22460 of 2018 ORDER :

Heard.

2.

Petitioner is presently working as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. He was initially appointed as Transport Constable in Transport Department and his promotion was based on the Diploma in Automobile Engineering certificate obtained from the A.P.State Board of Technical Education & Training, Hyderabad. It appears, Government received complaints on submission of invalid certificates to claim promotion as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors. Government vide G.O.Rt.No.135 dated 13.03.2015 directed the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Telangana to investigate into the genuineness of the certificates and submit a report. Accordingly, the report dated 12.01.2018 is submitted. This writ petition is filed challenging the said report. 3.

As fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner so far no adverse decision is taken by the Government based on the report, though purportedly in the report it is alleged that the certificate obtained by the petitioner is not valid. Learned counsel also submits that petitioner is not over looked for promotion and no junior to him is promoted.

4.

As noticed above, the report is submitted based on the direction of the Government. It is an internal correspondence between the Additional Director General of Police, CID and the Government and it is only a report submitted as called for by the

- 3 - Government. It is ultimately for the Government to accept the content of the report or to ignore the report. So far no decision is made by Government. Thus, there is no cause of action for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, more so, against an internal report.

5.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to file objections on the content of the report. 6.

Having regard to the above, petitioner is granted liberty to raise objection, if so advised, on the content of the report and it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, if any adverse decision is taken or he is ignored for promotion and juniors to him are promoted.

7.

Subject to above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 4th July, 2018 Rds