The applicant submits that he is having a qualification of M.A. Philosophy and
APSET and secured 61% of marks and he is working as Guest Lecturer in Degree College . The applicant is fully qualified to hold the
post of Degree College Lecturer.
Therefore, he submitted an
application 15-07- 2014 to the respondents for the post of Degree College Lecturer which
is being filled up on contract basis for a period of one year. . It
is submitted that the in Zone –IV the
respondents are not following the rules for recruitment to the post Degree
College Lecturer. There are about 250 Degree College Lecturer posts., all in Zone-IV and they are being filled up on contract
basis by the persons who does not have qualification prescribed by the special
rules in G.O.Ms.No. 47 dated 14-5-2007.
But the respondents have not taken any action till today with regard to
considering the candidature of the applicant for the post of Degree College
Lecturer on contract basis. Thereby, the applicant herein is being put to
irreparable loss and not getting employment.
Inspite of having eligible person, the respondents herein are going for
renewing the contract appointment year after year with ineligible persons. Thereby depriving the applicant for the
employment, even on contract basis. After
hearing the matter, directed the respondent to consider the representation of
the applicant in residual vacancy. The above case argued by me and obtained favorable order on behalf of the
applicant.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
THE MUNICIPAL NOTICE IS SET ASIDE
The Petitioner is a tenant and he
is paying rents continuously to the owner.
The owner came and requested tenant to increase rent from 4800/- to
10,000/-. The tenant has refused. Then the owner demanded to vacation of the
premises. The tenant has filed Original Suit and obtained temporary
injunction. Then Municipality Vijayawada has issued notice under section
456 HMC act 1955 on the ground that the building is in dilapidated condition with the collusion of the owner. The said notice was questioned before the Hon’ble
High Court in W.P. and the same was setasided on earlier occasion giving
liberty to the petitioner to file objections to the above said notice within a week.
Accordingly the petitioner has filed his objections within three
days. Without considering the same again
the municipality has passed an order
that as the petitioner has not filed his objections and reiterated the municipality
old order stating the petitioner has to take steps immediate vacation of the
building and strengthen the building immediately
and also further to intimate the steps taken within 3 days. The petitioner has filed W.P. questioning the
file notice dt.17-5-2014. the Hon’ble
Court while disposing the W.P. the impugned order is setaside directed the
respondents to consider the objections and pass orders thereon communicate the same to the petitioner and take
action in accordance with law at the earliest and in any event, not late than
one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. The Writ petition
stands disposed of accordingly. The
above case is argued by me and obtained favorable orders for tenant.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
DIRECTED TO PAY ALL TERMINAL BENEFITS TO THE DECEASED FAMILY MEMBERS
The applicant submits that he is working as
Police Constable at Chitvel P.S. YSR
District Kadapa. While the applicant
was working at KondapuramPolice
Station in the year 1992, he fell
sick from 29-6-1992 to 26-10-1993 in piece meal. the same was
informed to his superiors. When he approached for fresh passport to continue on
leave, the station house officer, Kondapuram refused the same on the ground that the Circle Inspector of
Police instructed him not to give medical pass port. He never absent to his duty. The applicant was taken on duty in the year
1996. In the mean while
a criminal cases U/s. 420 of IPC
and Cr. U/s.147, 148, 448,324, 307 r/w 149 of IPC of Kondapura PS on the ground that the
applicant was entered into the house of
private person and further charged that
the applicant was entered agreement with one person i.e. Class - I
contractor to do business of exporting
iron-scrap from South Central railways
Secundrabad filing Tenders on his name in April 1993 and October 1993 were
registered cases against the applicant. and violated Rule 9 (4) and 10 of APCS
(conduct ) Rules 1964.
(b) The applicant submit that he never involved in criminal case and the
alleged false case against the applicant
was acquitted. He neither entered into
the house of private person nor caused
bleeding injuries due to grudges in the
business of iron scrap and thus the
provision of Rule 3 (1) of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 will not
applicable and in the year April and
October 1993 The applicant submit that
he was very much in service up to 1999.
if the charges are true they
ought to have initiate disciplinary action immediately and the 2nd respondent has issued the above
charge dt. 28-1-2011 after laps
of 6 years i.e. in the year 1999 and
also re-opened and appointed Enquiry Officer after laps of 17 years is illegal
arbitrary and liable to be setaside and
which is contrary to reported Supreme
Court judgment. Due to ill fate of the
applicant, the applicant was dismissed from service in the year 2000 vide
proceeding No. C.dt. 10-7-2000. Against
the said dismissal order the applicant was filed O.A.No. 4637/2000 and the same
was allowed by setting aside the alleged charge and against the order of the Tribunal,
the respondents has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High court by
way of Writ petition and the same was dismissed as follows.
“ In this background of the
matter, We feel that the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and it does
not require any interference by this Court.
Hence this writ petition is devoid of merits and as such the same is liable
to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed No costs”.
After the above dismissal of
the W.P. which was filed by the respondents
the applicant was reinstated into
service on dt.9-11-2010. The applicant
is in service and continued as such.
(c ) The
applicant submit that the 2nd respondent has issued another false charge memo dt. 2-2-2011 that the applicant was deserted from service
without leave or permission and without intimating him where abouts to his
superiors from 29-6-1992 to 19-7-1992 and thereby violated rule 3 (1 ) of APCS (Conduct )Rules
1964. In
this connection the applicant submit that he reported sick in the year 1992 and continued to avail medical leave up to
26-10-1993. Thereafter the
respondents treated his leave as “ Leave
without pay ” and he was in service up to 1999. Keeping grudge in mind against the applicant, the respondents again
re-opened false charges and asking him to submit explanation in the year 2011 i.e.
after laps of 17 and 18 years as illegal and arbitrary and violation reported
supreme court judgment and Article 16,
21 and 311(2 ) of Constitution of
India. Thus above charges are liable to be set-aside.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
DIRECTED THE OPPOSITE PARTY TO PAY
The
complainant has booked 4 kgs silver @77,500/- kg and paid an advance of Rs.
3,00,000/- by cash to the Opposite Party on 25-04-2011. Balance of Rs. 10,000/- 9-5-2011. The Opposite Party was endorsed the same and delivered the 4 kgs
silver to the complainant on 09-05-2011 without issuing proper receipts/tax
invoices and other government receipts except the estimate/quotation bill dated
09-05-2011. But the OP has issued receipt for 4 kgs silver @55,000/- as on the
date of delivery date i.e. 9-5-2011. Further
the OP never issued sale bill on delivery date though the complainant
insisted for issuance of sale bill. At
the time of sale bill the OP assured to the complainant that if any defect he will be take back the silver. After 45 days the
has issued sale bill showing
that the complainant was purchased 4 silver
@ 55,000/-. Neither warranty nor guarantee card was issued by the OP to
the complainant. Within a year the said
silver turned as block Colour. In spite of several requests made by the
complainant that to take back the silver, but
the Opposite Party refused to take back. Before court of law The
complainant has contended that the OP has to issued sale bill without
mentioning on the sale pure or standard silver, further the OP has
issued tax invoce bill other than his shop is a deficiency in service on the
part of the OP. Further the complainant
contended that the OP adopted dubious method, unfair trade practice, malpractice in his business. Therefore the action of the OP is contrary to
reported Judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission of A.P. The OP has denied the
allegation of the complainant contended
that he never issued some of them i.e. estimate quotation and tax invoice bill and further he never adopted
unfair trade practice and malpractices in his business. Therefore requested the court to dismiss the complaint.
The Hon’ble district Forum after
considering contentions raised by the both the parties and found that there was a
deficiency in service, unfair trade Practice and malpractices on the
part of the Opposite Party. Therefore directed
the compliant is allowed and directed the
Opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- @ 9% interest to the complainant/Appellant. Rs.
2000/- as legal expenses. The above case was argued by me and got favorable
order in favour of complainant.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
DISMISSED WRIT PETITION
The
Petitioner filed Writ Petition to quash
the ratification order of the Wakf Board the action of the Muthuvalli in
appointing the Naib Muthuvalli in Bajibaba Aulia Pedakakani, Guntur District. The contention of the writ petitioner (Mother
of the Muthuwalli) is that Naib Muthuwalli (deputy) appointed by the Wakf
Board. Further contended that as understanding by the family members of the
writ petitioner the Muthuwalli was appointed.
Further after appointment of the Muthuwalli (2nd respondent)
certain disputes arose between writpetition and Muthuwalli, as advised by the
elders of the community people, an agreement was reached that the writ petition
and Muthuwalli act as joint Muthuwallies of the Darga. The contention of the respondent no. 2 and 3
that such agreement never recognized by the Wakf Board, further there was no
such agreement between the Board and writ Petitioner and her family
members. The said agreement not
registered one. After hearing the matter
the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. dismissed the Writ petition on the ground that
this court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter further held that writ
petition has no locus standi and accordingly writ petition is dismissed. The above case is argued by me on behalf of
the respondents no. 2 and 3 and got favorable orders.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
DIRECTED THE RESPONDENT /OPPOSITE PARTY TO PAY THE AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT/CONSUMER
The
Complaint/Consumer was purchased a plot from the Developer/Builder and paid
Rs.5,00,000/-. Subsequently the builder
was registered a plot instead of allotted/confirmed plot. The complainant, was made request builder
to register the allotted plot. But the builder never heed the request of the
complainant. Then the compliant has
approached the Forum and the Forum dismissed the same. Against the order of the Forum the complainant
has filed Appeal. After enquiry, the
appellate court has found that the Opposite party adopted unfair trade practice
and deficiency in service on his part and setasided the order of the Forum and
allowed the appeal and directed the
Opposite party to an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/-
@ 9% interest to the complainant/Appellant. Further directed to Opposite party to pay Rs.3000/- as cost The above case was argued by me on behalf of
the Appellant/complainant and got favorable orders.
Monday, February 4, 2013
BAIL GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER
Against
the petitioner/accused a crime was registered U/s. 406,420, 323 and 506 in
Police Station Banjara Hills Hyderabad . He was arrested and remanded to the Judicial
custody. The Court below dismissed a
bail application of the petitioner on the ground that this is not a stage to
grant bail to the petitioner.
Questioning the same, he approached to the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. by
way of Crl.p and contended that the complainant has gone back on the original
terms of the development agreement and therefore, he is a defaulting party. The learned counsel took me to the Photostat
copy of the development agreement-cum-gener5al power of Attorney dated in
support of his contention. The learned
public prosecutor opposed the application. The dispute between the petitioner
and the complainant relates to the terms of the development agreement. In that view of the matter I m inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner on certain conditions. Accordingly the criminal petition is allowed.
The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.
5,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court
below Nampally Hyderabad and on further
condition that the petition shall appear before the Station House Officer,
Banhjara Hills P.s. once in a week i.e. on every Stauraday between 10.00 a.m.
and 5.00.p.m. for four weeks or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is
earlier. The above case was argued by me on behalf of the petitioner/accused before the both the courts
and obtained favorable order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)