Buthukuri Kumaraswamy vs The State Of Telangana

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 873 Tel
Judgement Date : 21 February, 2023

Telangana High Court
Buthukuri Kumaraswamy vs The State Of Telangana on 21 February, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                               AND

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                WRIT APPEAL No.158 of 2023


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


      Heard Mr. S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel representing

Mr. Kalvala Sanjeev, learned counsel for the appellant and

Mr. P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, Singareni

Collieries Company Ltd. for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the review petition I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.7250 of 2021 filed by the appellant as the review petitioner.

3. We may mention that earlier appellant had filed the related writ petition being W.P.No.7250 of 2021 assailing the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Superintendent of Mines rejecting the claim of the appellant for dependent employment on the basis of age factor overlooking the Open School Certificate.

                                    2                       HCJ & NTRJ
                                                     W.A.No.158 of 2023




     4.     Learned     Single    Judge      by   the    order    dated

30.11.2021 disposed of the writ petition in the following manner:

"6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of by directing the respondents to refer the petitioner for appropriate medical examination as per the Mines Act, 1952 so as to ascertain whether the date of birth which is entered into the S.S.C. Certificate of TOSS is matching with the report of medical examination. If the date of birth of the petitioner on medical examination matches with the date of birth as entered in the S.C.C. certificate, the respondents would consider the case of the petitioner for providing dependent employment. The respondents shall refer the case of the petitioner to medical examination within two months and upon such outcome of the said examination, the case of the petitioner would be considered for appointment to the post for dependent employment in terms of the scheme of the respondent-company."

5. From the above, it is seen that learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to refer the case of the appellant for appropriate medical examination as per the Mines Act, 1952 so as to ascertain whether the date of birth reflected in the school certificate was matching with the 3 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.158 of 2023 report of medical examination, further clarifying that if the medical examination affirm the date of birth entered in the school certificate, respondents would consider the case of the appellant for providing dependent employment.

6. It appears that appellant had again filed W.P.No.27653 of 2022 contending that there was no medical examination of the candidate whose case was cited as an example by the respondents in W.P.No.7250 of 2021. It further appears that Writ Petition No.27653 of 2022 was dismissed by learned Single Judge with the observation that appellant should file review petition for review of order dated 30.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.7250 of 2021. Accordingly, Review I.A.No.1 of 2022 was filed by the appellant for review of order dated 30.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.7250 of 2021.

7. By the order dated 04.11.2022, the review petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge observing that relief sought for by the appellant was already granted by this Court and there was nothing to be reviewed.

                                    4                     HCJ & NTRJ
                                                   W.A.No.158 of 2023




8. We have carefully perused the order dated 30.11.2021 and we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

9. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 has submitted that appellant had subjected himself to medical examination. As per report of medical examination, there is a variation with the date of birth recorded in the school certificate. Appellant was found to be more than 35 years of age which would disentitle him from claiming dependent employment.

10. Having regard to the above, we do not find any good ground to entertain the writ appeal either against the order dated 30.11.2021 or against the order dated 04.11.2022.

11. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                5                      HCJ & NTRJ
                                                W.A.No.158 of 2023




12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 17.02.2023 KL