SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(AP) 1200

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, GHULAM MOHAMMED
A. Sagar – Appellant
Versus
State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad – Respondent


B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Services-I and at their request, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

( 2 ) RULE Nisi.

( 3 ) THE petitioner herein invokes theextraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india challenging the legality of the order dated 2-8-2002 made in O. A. No. 3320 of 2002 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal whereunder the Tribunal refused to grant any relief whatsoever to the petitioner herein. The said Original application is filed by the petitioner herein challenging the action of the third respondent herein in not permitting him to attend basic training of Police Constable as arbitrary and illegal.

( 4 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as towhether the petitioner is entitled for any relief in this Writ Petition, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition.

( 5 ) THE first respondent herein issued anotification in newspapers in July, 2001 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of police Constables. The petit


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top