Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 559 (AP)

S. K. Khajamohiddin v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-09-04

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
JUDGMENT M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not considering the case of petitioner for relaxation of Rule 16(h) of A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules in his favour while considering the case of similarly situated persons recruited along with the petitioner of the same batch vide G.O.Ms.Nos.105, 106 and 107, dated 16.02.2013, G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 02.03.2018, G.O.Ms.Nos.241, 242 and 243 dated 13.03.2019, without any justification or reasonable cause, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides being contrary to the law of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9856-9860 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No.795 of 2017, dated 23.01.2017 and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Rule 16(h) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules in favour of the petitioner as was extended in respect of similarly situated persons and pass such other order." 2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner requested this Court without touching the merits of the case to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 03.01.2020. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I readily agreed to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 03.01.2020, if any, pending with the respondent authorities. 4. In view of the submissions of learned Government Pleader for Services-I, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. 5. 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.Venkatesh, (2019) 8 Scale 544 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 not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 03.01.2020 submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. But, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 03.01.2020 submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, Writ Petition is disposed of , directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 03.01.2020, in accordance with law, within two (02) months from today. No costs' As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.