Buthukuri Kumaraswamy vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 873 Tel

   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