Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra Pradesh By Its Chief ... on 30 January, 1959
8. After the above judgment the petitioner filed RP No.2026 of 1987 on 6-4-1987 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to appoint him as Junior Medical Officer in Homeopathy with effect from 30-3-1979 with pay and allowances and all other consequential benefits. He also sought for interim relief to direct the 2nd respondent to appoint him as Medical Officer pending disposal of the above RP. The Tribunal, by its order dated 16-4-1987, white giving three weeks time to the Government Pleader to file counter-affidavit, directed the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner if there is any vacancy in the post of Junior Medical Officer. That order has not been complied with and in those circumstances he filed RMP No.728 of 1987 for the same relief and the Tribunal once again, by its order dated 24-4-1987, reiterated the earlier order. The Tribunal by its order dated 4-6-1987 while ordering fresh notice to the contesting respondent, once again observed that if the Government will not file counter-affidavit within the stipulated time it shall become necessary to the Tribunal to issue coercive orders for compliance and posted the matter to 22-6-1987. In the light of the defiance shown by the official respondents in neither complying with the orders of the Tribunal nor in filing counter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.8688 of 1988. His Lordship P.A. Chowdhary, J., (as he then was) by order dated 15-6-1988 opined that the judgment of this Court in Syed Mohd. Ghouse v. State of A.P. (supra), wherein this Court held that the aggrieved party can approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking implementation of the orders of the Administrative Tribunal, requires reconsideration in the light of the legal position stated therein. This writ petition along with some other writ petitions was posted before a Division Bench consisting of B.P. Jeevati Reddy and Y. Bhaskar Rao, JJ (as they were then) and their Lordships by their order dated 9-10-1988 reiterated the above decision of this Court and felt that there is no need to refer the matter to a Full Bench for reconsideration. Stating so, their Lordships directed the office to post the individual writ petitions for disposal before a learned single Judge. Subsequently the miscellaneous application i.e., WP MP No.10779 of 1988 in Writ Petition No.8688 of 1988 came up for hearing before M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (as he then was) and by order dated 24-3-1989 his Lordship gave an interim direction to consider the case of the petitioner as per the orders of the Administrative Tribunal dated 24-4-1987 if the same has not been stayed by the Supreme Court or has not already been implemented. As this order was also not implemented the petitioner seemed to have filed another WP MP No.4660 of 1989. The petitioner, perhaps having been vexed with the defiant attitude of the respondents and without knowing how to get the orders of this Court as well as the Tribunal implemented, filed another Writ Petition No.18764 of 1988 seeking implementation of the orders of the Tribunal dated 16-4-1987 and 24-4-1987 and also prayed for an interim order to appoint him as Medical Officer pending disposal of the writ petition, apart from attacking the appointment of the 4th and 5th respondents on the ground that they have produced bogus certificates and got appointment under physically handicapped quota. All the above WP MPs. came up for hearing before M. Jagannadha Rao, J and his Lordship, by order dated 20-4-1989, once again gave an interim direction to implement the orders of the Tribunal and directed the office to post both Writ Petition Nos.18764 and 8688 of 1988 for final hearing subject to part-heard cases on 10-7-1989. But those cases seemed to have not been listed for hearing. In those circumstances, once again the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2884 of 1990 on the file of this Court questioning the vires of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975 as well as the non-implementation of rule of reservation properly, and faulty selections made by the 2nd respondent and sought for several directions in the writ petition. In the meantime RP No.2026 of 1987 came up for final hearing before the Chairman of the Tribunal on 14-8-1989 and his Lordship, without going into various issues raised by the petitioner, allowed the RP on the ground that the allegation of the petitioner that the 5th respondent i.e., Dr. Ram Mohan Rao docs not possess the required experience for appointment stood uncontroverted by the Government and though the said Dr. Ram Mohan Rao was made a party-respondent he did not choose to file any counter-affidavit. With the result, the allegation of the petitioner must be taken to have been established and it is not open for the Government to relax conditions laid down in the notification and therefore the order of the Government in appointing the 5th respondent as, Junior Medical Officer is ex facie erroneous. In the words of his Lordship, "Hence, unhesitatingly I hold that the said relaxation and consequential selection of the 4th respondent must be declared as illegal and invalid". His Lordship having taken note of the allegations with regard to the other three persons selected for appointment in Zone' No.VII did not disturb their selection as they were not made parties to the proceedings. Ultimately, the following direction was given by the Tribunal :
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 323 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 323A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 371 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Y. Ramanjaneyulu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 March, 1985
In the beginning of the case I thought of awarding some compensation to the petitioner as he has not discharged the duties attached to the post by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Y. Ramanjaneyulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 928. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court having declared the legal position in their wisdom chose to award compensation in lumpsum for the injustice done !o the petitioner instead of allowing back wages as the petitioner has also contributed in not getting the relief earlier by not approaching the Court for several years seeking the relief i.e., promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar and further promotions on the basis of G.O. Ms. No.559, dated 4-5-1961, whereunder the principle of reservation for appointments should be extended to all cadres of posts including posts involving promotions in all departments including the departments of Secretarial to which he did not apply till then. But. in this case the facts are otherwise. All through the respondents exhibited negative attitude and took defiant altitude by not caring to the orders of the Court that have been passed from time to time.