Disclaimer

Disclaimer: The information providing here is for general awareness. Author is not responsible for any consequence through use or misuse of the same. This blog is designed for general information only. The information presented at this blog should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advices regarding their individual legal issues.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

DIRECTED TO CONSIDER REPRESENATION

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, 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.