Prl. Secretary, I And Cad Dept., Hyd And 2 Ot v. Gadapa Kanaka Swamy, Adilabad Dt. And ANR
[ 3313 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO: 29444 OF 2013 Between:
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, I & CAD Department, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Superintending Engineer, l& CAD Department, FFC Circle No.2, L.M.D.Colony, Karimnagar District.
3. The Executive Engineer, l& CAD Department, Division No.4, K.N.R. Project, Kaddam, Adilabad District.
...PETITIONERS AND Gadapa Kanaka Swamy, Unemployee, R/o. Peddur, Kddam, Adilabad District The Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad, represented by its Registrar.
...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble AT. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A. No. 298/2010 dated 17 -04-2013 and quash the same as being perverse, erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and contrary to law.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 36582 OF 2013) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pawed in O.A.No.29Bl2010 dated 17-042013 pending disposal of the Writ petition.
l
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Between:
Gadapa Kanaka Swamy, S/o. Late Eeswaramma, Age about4S years, R/o. Peddur, Kaddam, Adilabad District (Now Kaddam in Nirmal District - 504202) ...PETITIONERJRESPONDENT No.1 AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, I & CAD Department, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Superintending Engineer, I & CAD Department, FFC Circle No.2, L.M. D.Colony, Karimnagar District.
3. The Executive Engineer, l& CAD Department, Division No.4, K.N.R. Project, Kaddam, Adilabad District.
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS
4. The Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad, represented by its Registrar.
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.2 in main WP Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim suspension granted on 1011012013 ln W.P. M.P No 3658212013 in W.P. No 2944412013 and also dismiss the W.P. No 2944412013 with costs in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. BHARAT SHAH The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Writ PetitionNo.29444 of 20L3 ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Si Justice Abhinand Kunar Shauili) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners under Article226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal'), Hyderabad in O.A.No.298 of 201O, dated 17.O4.2O13 and to quash the same.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Service-I, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M. Bharat Shah, learned counsel for the lst respondent.
3.
Learned Government Pleader contended that the lst respondent has approached the Tribunal seeking consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds while his representations, dated 17.O2.2O19 and 12.O3.2O19 were pending with the petitioners and that the Tribunal without appreciating
any of the contentions raised by the petitioners allowed the O.A and directed the petitioners to consider the case of the 1"t respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds, 1n relaxation of the Rule of limitation of one year period prescribed under the scheme.
4.
Learned Government Pleader has further contended that the 1., respondent's brother was given compassionate appointment as attender, but having found that he did not possess requisite qua-lification and as he was appointed in excess to the quota, his services were terminated with a direction to him to submit a fresh application seeking compassionate appointment in a lower post. He has further contended that the 1"t respondent's brother has expired even before submission of such application and that considering the 1"t respondent's brother for compassionate appointment would not arise as the application for compassionate was not made within the prescribed period of one year. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition
by setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.298 of 2010, dated 17.04.2013 and allow the writ petition. 5.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent has contended that there was a delay in making representation seeking compassionate appointment and the Tribunal has merely allowed the O.A directing the petitioners to consider the case of the l"t respondent in relaxation of the Rule of limitation of one year under the scheme and the petitioner instead of considering the case of 1"t respondent has filed the present writ petition and obtained stay of Tribunal's order. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A. in favour of the 1"t respondent, there I €Lre no merits in the writ petition ar-rd the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made I I by the parties, is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A in favour of the l"t respondent. The Tribunal had merely directed the petitioners to consider the case of the 1"t respondent as per the scheme, which contemplates )
compassionate appointment. The only issue in the present case is that the petitioners have to examine the delay by relaxing certain terms in the scheme. Therefore, the Tribuna,l was justified in allowing the O.A in favour of the l"t respondent. Therefore, thrs Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunai.
7.
With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
8.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, sha-ll stand closed.
I Ass,'iRl'IiEEi#tH //rRUE CoPY/t 0/ SECTIONI'FFICER To, 1 . Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
2. One CC to Sri M. BHARAT SHAH, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CD Copies BN GJPa
I I HIGH COURT DATED:2010212023 tl,E STAI€ '\ ( (, e J
ORDER
t) 1[ IIAY ztrI] WP.No.29444 of 2013 :.)- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v1 i\, o