Andhra Pradesh Court April 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
C. Srinivasulu Reddy and ors. Vs. Sri Venkateswara University and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT193
ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioners seek admission into B.Tech. Degree Course in the First Respondent-Sri Venkateswara University, College of Engineering, Tirupathi (for short, 'the University7), and pray for a Writ declaring the resolution No. 24(4) dated 14-7-1991 of the Board of Management of the University, in so far as it has not restored with effect from the academic year 1991-92 admissions under 'staff-children-quota' in B.Tech., Degree Course, as illegal and void and for issuance of a consequential direction to the University to extend the said benefit to B.Tech., Degree Course, as well.2. The petitioners are all the children of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the University. The University sanctioned twelve additional seats for B.Tech. Degree Course for the benefit of the children of the University staff. Those seats were being filled up from among the staff-children, according to merit and ranking secured in EAMCET examination.3. For the academic year 1991-92, the...
E. Krishna and ors. Vs. Director General, Indian Council of Medical Re ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ239AP
1. These three writ petitions are filed by the casual labourers of the National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad. All these petitioners are working as Garden Malis, Mason Helpers, Canteen Workers, Animal Attendants, Laboratory Attendants and similar posts which all come under Group-D category posts in the Institute. The main relief asked for in these writ petitions is the implementation of the Government's policy enunciated in O.M. No. DOP P. No. 49014/2/86-Estt. (C) dated June 7, 1988. The petitioners pray for two reliefs : (1) for issuance of a writ of mandamus to absorb and regularise the services of the petitioners against regular posts; (2) to make payment of daily wages till the date of their absorption in accordance with the Government's Memo No. DPO F.J. 40024/2/86-Estt. (C) dated June 7, 1988 and they also pray for consequential benefits and arrears of salary. 2. The Writ Petition No. 9445 of 1991 is filed by 12 petitioners. The Writ Petition No. 9897 of 1991 is filed by 16 p...
Srinivasalu C. Vs. Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1992
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1452AP
S.C. Pratap, C.J.1. Question here involved is squarely covered by Division Bench ruling of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 36/1992 dated March 9, 1992. Learned Counsel, however, submits that the said decision needs to be reconsidered.2. Hearing Counsel on either side at some length and going through the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. N. Hargopal (1987-I-LLJ-545) (SC), we see justification for considering the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of this Court. In fact, this very Supreme Court ruling has been referred to in the above judgment and constitutes one of the bases of the said judgment.3. Respondent-Devasthanam was perfectly within its right while recruiting attenders to state that only those sponsored by the Employment Exchange will be considered. This in a way regulates the mode of recruitment and eliminates to the extent reasonably possible element of arbitrariness in the matter of recruitment and appointment. As observed by this Court in, the Division Bench ruling supra...
C. Srinivasulu Vs. the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT75
S.C. Pratap, C.J.1. Question here involved is squarely covered by Division Bench ruling of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 36/92 dated 9th March, 1992. Learned Counsel, however, submits that the said decision needs to be reconsidered.2. Hearing Counsel on either side at some length and going through the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. N. Hargopal, we see no justification for reconsidering the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of this Court. In fact, this very Supreme Court ruling has been referred to in the above judgment and constitutes one of the bases of the said judgment.3. Respondent-Devasthanam was perfectly within its right while recruiting attenders to state that only those sponsored by the Employment Exchange will be considered. This in a way regulates the mode of recruitment and eliminates to the extent reasonably possible element of arbitrariness in the matter of recruitment and appointment. As observed by this Court in the Division Bench ruling supra,-'.... The stand ...
Zehra Begum Vs. the Administrator, Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT257
ORDER1. It is regrettable that even though the property of the writ petitioner was taken over more than two years back, that too at the instance of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, second respondent herein, as is evident from Letter No. 446/l/23/ACP/C1/MCH/89-90, dt. 8-2-1990, no compensation has been paid to her till this date. What is more, two responsible local authorities, viz., Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority are claiming that they are not responsible to pay compensation, each throwing blame on the other. Prima facie, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is liable to pay compensation. Necessary orders would be passed in the writ appeal with regard to reimbursement if ultimately the writ appeal filed by Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority is dismissed. In any event, action of both the authorities is in flagrant violation of the Constitutional mandate contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India.2. The bui...
P. Srinivasa Rao, Upper Division Clerk Vs. the Divisional Engineer (Op ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT614
Iyyapu Panduranga Rao, J.1. This writ petition is directed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings dated 28-5-1986 in Memo No.SE/OR/ HYD/Peshi/D. No. 939 (in brief the 'impugned Proceedings') and quash the same as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to the Regulations of the A.P. State Electricity Board (in brief 'the Board'). The Petitioner joined the service of the Board as a Lower Division Clerk on January 29,1960. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in June, 1969. While working as U.D. Clerk the petitioner was kept under suspension as per orders dated August 23,1983 in Memo No. DEE/OP/VKB/ADM/C2/B. No. 22/83. Sri K.Hanumantha Rao, Divisional Engineer (Electrical), N.R.T. Rural, Hyderabad was appointed as Enquiry Officer, as per orders dated 25-9-1983. The said enquiry officer framed as many as 16 charges and initiated enquiry in accordance with the Regulations of the A.P.S.E.B. The petitioner having submitted his explanatio...
M. Shakuntala Vs. M. Shivaraj
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT704
Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This is a petition filed to review the Judgment and decree this Court dated 2-9-1986 passed in the above appeal and to allow the same.2, The facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took place on 28-4-1974 at the house of her husband in Chinthalabasthi, Hyderabad. Thereafter they lived together happily for sometime and a female child was born. Later on some differences arose. Therefore, the husband filed O.P.No. 114/1977 on the file of the IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion by the wife. The lower court after considering the entire material on record allowed the O.P. and granted a decree of divorce. Against that Judgment, the wife filed the appeal, C.M.A.No. 385 of 1981. The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of K. Amareswari, J and one of us (Bhaskar Rao, J.). When the appeal came up for hearing this Court directed the learned cou...
The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Raja J. Rameswara Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT565
ORDERG. Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. As these three appeals arise out of a common order dated 25-4-1986 in O.P.No.16/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Gadwal, all of them are being disposed of together.2. An extent of Ac3.36 guntas of dry land covered by S.No. 1142 in Wanaparthy village in Mahaboobnagar District was acquired by means of a notification dated 8-3-1979 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of an R.T.C. bus-stand. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 19-6-1981 fixing the market value at Rs. 1-60 paise per square yard. On reference, the civil court passed an order on 25-4-1986 fixing the market value at Rs. 50/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the said award the claimants as well the beneficiary i.e., the A.P.S.R.T.C. preferred these appeals.3. The Land Acquisition Officer considering the potential items and particularly relying upon Exs.A-14 and A-15 sale deeds, awarded a sum of Rs. 1-60 Ps. per square yard towards compe...
Mir Naimathulla Vs. the Director General, Railway Protection Force and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT44
ORDERD.J. Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Sub-inspector from the date his juniors were promoted i.e., with effect from Force Order 148/84 dated 19-10-1984 with all consequential benefits.In this writ petition, Sri K. Laxminarasimham, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the promotion to the petitioner was denied in the year 1984 on the ground that for the years 1982 and 1983, his Annual Confidential Reports contained adverse remarks. Mr. Laxminarasimham points out that the adverse remarks of Annual Confidential Report of 1982 were never communicated to the petitioner and hence, they cannot be taken into consideration. The adverse remarks for 1983 were written by an officer, who is not competent to write the remarks, because the petitioner worked under him only for less than six months period. Under the rules, an Officer under whom the incumbent worked for less tha...
Smt. K. Durga Devi Vs. the Commissioner of Collegiate Education and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT735
ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioner is the Librarian in Sri Venkateswara Oriental College, Tirupati, which is under the management of the Second-respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and is affiliated to Sri Venkateswara University. The petitioner impugnes the proceedings of the first respondent-Commissioner of Collegiate Education dated 4-10-1989, stating that there is no provision for the post of Librarian in the Oriental Colleges and, therefore, the question of approving the pay fixation of the Librarian on par with University Grants Commission's scales does not arise.2. The petitioner was appointed as Librarian on 9-9-1980 and she joined in the said post on 12-9-1980. Her services were regularised with probationary rights on 4-4-1988 in the scales of Rs. 800-1450 (D.A. merged scale) which is a State scale, with effect from 25-12-1987. In the year 1984, the scales applicable as laid down by U.G.C. came into effect, fixing the scale of pay Rs. 700-1600 for Lecturers.3. By G.O...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »