Shaik Imran vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1866 AP

            HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

                        Writ Petition No.9359 of 2021
ORDER:

With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Services-I, this matter is being disposed of

at the stage of admission.

This writ petition is filed "to declare the action of the respondents in

not considering the petitioner for selection for the post of STC PC

(Mechanic) and STC PC (Driver) under non creamy layer category of BC-E in

pursuance of the Recruitment Notification Rc.No.247/R & T/Rect.2/2016,

dated 01.09.2016, issued by the 2nd respondent, basing upon the

Memorandum issued by the 2nd respondent in Memorandum RC

No.247/Rect./Rect.2/2016 dated 26.11.2016, as illegal and arbitrary.''

Case of the petitioner is that, he belongs to non creamy layer

category of BC-E; pursuant to the Recruitment Notification dated

01.09.2016 for the post of STC PC (Mechanic) and STC PC (driver), he

applied for the said post and qualified in the written test by obtaining 143

marks for PC (driver) and 125 marks for PC (mechanic); petitioner also

qualified in the physical measurement test; as per the instructions of the

2nd respondent, he forwarded all the required certificates to him on

23.05.2017; after completing all formalities and after issuing the

Memorandum dated 26.11.2016 that the petitioner has been qualified for

both the posts, the 2nd respondent has not communicated any appointment

letter; he made a representation on 24.12.2018 to the 2nd respondent

requesting him to consider his case for the post of SCT PC (Mechanic) and

SCT PC (driver); again he made another representation to the 2nd

respondent on 17.03.2021, which was received by the 2nd respondent on 18.03.2021, but there was no response from the 2nd respondent. Hence, the

writ petition.

Even though various contentions have been raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, he requested this

Court to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the

representation of the petitioners dated 17.03.2021.

This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of

the judgment of the Apex Court in "The Government of India v.

P.Venkatesh1", wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for

a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions,

but they do no service to the cause of justice. However, as the learned

counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose

of the representation dated 17.03.2021 submitted by the petitioner, I find

no other alternative except to issue such a direction.

In view of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the

representation dated 17.03.2021 of the petitioner, if it is available and not

yet disposed of, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as

possible.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand

closed.

__________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

Date: 06.05.2021 BSS

2019 (8) SCALE 544 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

WRIT PETITION No.9359 of 2021

Date: 06.05.2021

BSS