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

2008 Supreme(AP) 312

L.NARASIMHA REDDY
J. V. T Krishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad – Respondent


Advocates appeared:Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Counsel for the Petitioner in all the Cases; Government Pleader for Social Welfare, Counsel A.P., doubting the genuinity of the social for the Respondent No.1 in WP NoA599 of status of the petitioner and that an enquiry 2007 and for the Respondents in WP is pending. Obviously on the basis of No.15333 of 2007; A Krishnam Raju, (SC for the said communication, the Port Trust Port Trust), Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 did not take any steps to promote the and 3 in WP NoA599 of 2007 and for the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P. No.4599 Respondents in WP No.26129 of 2007; A of 2007 assailing the communication, dated Sai Chakravarthy, Counsel for the Respondent 19.1.2007.

ORDER :- The petitioner was employed as Khalasi in Traffic Department of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, on 28.9.1988. He secured that post, by claiming the status of Scheduled Tribe. The probation of the petitioner in that post was declared on 16.10.1989 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Tally Coupling Porter, Grade-II and his services were regularized in that post vide proceedings, dated 1.1.1990.

2. For the next higher post, namely Tally Clerk, the appointment is by promotion, after ascertaining the eligibility of the candidates in the interview. The petitioner was promoted to that post on 16.11.1991.

3. The Port Trust entertained a doubt about the genuinity of the social status of the petitioner. Several proceedings ensued at various levels and the service of the petitioner, as Tally Clerk, could not be regularized for a long time. It was only in pursuance of a direction issued by this Court in W.P. No.21172 of 2001 that the service of the petitioner was regularized vide proceedings, dated 16.12.2006.

4. The post superior to that of Tally Clerk, is Traffic Manager. Alleging that several Tally Clerks, who are juniors to the petitioner, were promoted to that post, the peti













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