K.Sai Kumar, v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.25483 OF 2018 DATED :25.07.2018 Between :

K.Sai Kumar S/o.Pallemsetti, Aged about 31 yrs, R/o.Ramavaram, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

..

Petitioner And The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District & another. .. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.25483 of 2018 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2.

This writ petition is filed alleging that even though petitioner is found meritorious and was issued provisional offer of appointment order on 14.06.2018, and original certificates were verified on 03.07.2018, but he is not subjected to medical examination though he was asked to come for medical examination on 04.07.2018, Further, so far no further date of medical examination is intimated to him. Petitioner apprehends that others are going to be appointed in the vacancies without appointing the petitioner.

3.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner so far the offer of appointment is not cancelled. Though alleges that he is not subjected to medical examination, but others are subjected to medical examination, petitioner has not even complained to the competent authority or higher authority about the illegal action sought to be undertaken by the subordinate authority, but straight away rushed to this Court. This Court cannot appreciate such attitude of rushing to the Court. Prima-facie, the prayer sought in the writ petition is pre-mature.

4.

On instructions, learned Standing Counsel submits that after submission of the original certificates, the vigilance is enquiring into the validity of certificates produced and so far no medical examination is conducted to any of the selected

- 3 - candidates. This would fortify the view of the Court that petitioner has rushed to this Court even before any adverse decision is taken by them. The writ petition merits no consideration at this stage and is liable to be dismissed.

5.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is needless to observe that as and when the cause of action arises to the petitioner or there is inordinate delay in appointing him and/or others are appointed, it is open to him to agitate his grievance. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 25th July, 2018 Rds