A.M. Yousuf Hussain v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: PULLA KARTHIK
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-02-20. A.M. Yousuf Hussain v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3301 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO: 4444 OF 2024 Between A. M. Yousuf Hussatn, S/o Late A. Jaffer Hussain, Aged about 59 yrs, Occ Superintendent Engineer-H[vlDA, Rl/o Flat No. 201 B, Endicos Alauddin County Apartments, Near Neelima Hospital, Czech Colony, Sanath nagar, Hyderabad 500018 ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana, through its Chief Secretary, having office at T. S. Secretariat. Hyderabad 2 The State of Telangana, through its Principal Secretary, M. A. and U. D. Having office at T. S. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. The Hy<Jerabad Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. by its Metropolitan Commissioner, Having office at 7th Floor, Swarna Jayanthi Commercial Complex. Ameerpet, Hyderabad 4. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, rep.
by its Joint Metropolitan Commissioner, Having office at HMDA Office Ameerpet, Hyderabad 5. Ch. Paramjyoti, Wo not known to the Petitioner, Occ lncharge Chief Engineer, HIritDA, R/o c/o Swarna Jayanti Commercial complex, 7th Floor, Ameerpet, Hyderabad ... 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 pass an order, direction or a writ particularly in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus declarrng that the action of the respondents No. 3 and 4 in following the Rule of Reservation to confer consequential seniority upon the respondent No.
5 in the matter of promotions above the petitioner belonging to general category, wrthout undertaking the exercise of collecting quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment and efficiency in services in addition to compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution of lndia, as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia, in a case of lVl. Nagraj 2006 (B) SCC 212, and in the case of Jarnail Singh reported in 2018 LawSuit (SC) 943 and DB Judgment of this Honourable Court in WP No. 4415 of 2016, on the basis of OBJECTIONS raised by the petitioner dated 12 th Feb 2024, is highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Consequentially, this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.
3 and 4 to undertake the exercise of collecting quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment and efficiency tn services rn addition to compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution of lndia, as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia, in a case of M. Nagraj 2006 (8) SCC 212, and in the case of Jarnail Singh reported in 2018 LawSuit (SC) 943 and DB Judgment of this Honourable Court in WP No. 4415 of 2016 and REVIEW All promotions granted since the date of judgment passed in tvl. Nagraj by the Honourable Supreme Court. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15'l CPC prayingl that in the circumstances stated in pleased to pass the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be an interim direction thereby directrng the respondent No. 3 and 4 to consider the objections raised by the petitioner dated 121212024, betore passing any orders pursuant to the Memo No.
2758/Estt/HfvlDA/2010, daled 291112024, thereby complying with Article 335 of the Constitutron of lndia, as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia, in a case of M. Nagrai 2006 (8) SCC 212, and in the case of Jarnail Singh reported in 2018 LawSuit (SC) 943 and DB Judgment of this Honourable Court in WP No. 4415 of 2016- Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 1&2 : GP FOR SERVICES lll Counsel for Respondents Nos. 3&4 : SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No. S : -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRT WSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No. 4444 OF 2o24 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief "... to pass an order, direction or a writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents No.
3 and 4 in following the Rule of Resewation to confer consequential seniority upon the respondent No. S in the matter of promotions above the petitioner belonging to general catcgory, without undertaking the exercise of collecting quantihable data showing inadequacy o[ representation of that class in public employment and e{ficiency in services in addition to compliance wrth Article 335 of the Constitution of India, as lard dou. n by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, in a case of M. Nagraj 2006 (8) SCC 212 artd in the case of Jarnail Singh reported in2o 18 LawSuit (SC) 943 and DB Judgment of this Hon'Lrle Court in W-P. No. 4415 of 2016, on the basis of objections rarsed by the peritioner dated, l2-O2-2O24 is highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, Consequently, this Hontrle Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.
3 and 4 to undertake the exercise of collecting quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment and efhcicncy in services in addition to compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution of India as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in a case of M. Nagraj 2006 (8) SCC 212, and in the cade of Jarnail Singh reported in2o18 LawSuit (SC) 943 arrd DB Judgment of this Honble Court in W. P. No. 4415 of 2O 16 and Review All promotions granted since the date of judgment passed in M. Nagraj by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and pass... " *p-*oo-:;;l 2. HeardSriMohd. Adnan,Iearnedcounselappearingforthe petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-lll' appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority' appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3. Withtheconsentoftherespectiveparties,thewritpetitionisbeing disposed of for the petitioner submits that though 4.
Learned counsel appearing the petitioner is. (11) years senior to respondent No'5 he is placed at Sl. No. 3,asjuniortorespondentNo. 5,inthetentativesenioritylistinthe cadre of Superintending trngineer' Aggrieved by the san-re, the petitioner submitted his objections to respondent No. 4 vide representation dated t2. O2. 2O24. However, without considering thc same, the respondents are proceeding to confer seniority to respondent No 5' Therefore, learned counsel for the petilioner prays this Court to direct respondent No'4 to consider the representation dated 12. 02'2024 and pass appropriate orders thereon. 5. lrarned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos'3 and 4 submits that respondent No. 4 will consider the objections raised by the petitioner vide letter daLed. 12. 02. 2024 and pass necessary orders accordingly. 6. In view of the above made submissions, without going into merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.
4 to PK,] wp_4444_2024 consider the objections raised by the petitioner vide letter dated 12. 02. 2024 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, a within a period of six (06) weeks from the date I of receipt of a copy of this I I order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. ( t I Interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. SD/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGTS //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chief Secretary, having office at T. S. Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad a The Principal Secretary, M. A. and U. D. Having office at T. S. Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad- 3 The Metropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Developm.
ent Authority, Having office at 7th Floor, Swarna Jayanthi Commercial Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 4 The Joint M6tropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Having office at HMDA Office Ameerpet, Hyderabad 5 One CC to SRI MOHAMIVIAD ADNAN, Advocate. [OPUC] r) Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES lll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7 Ohe CC to SRI V NARASIIUHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA. [OPUC] 8 Two CD Copres. BSK GJ % HIGH COURT DATED:2010212024 E STA16 1H ( c J P ? 3 1B lvlAR 2024 a +t * * c0 Dg SI'ATCt\ ORDER WP. No. 4444 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS d*d *'
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.