Back
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
K. Sulochana – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking Mandamus, for the following relief:
2. The facts of the case, as projected in Writ Affidavit in brief, are as follows:
a. Respondent/APSRTC, vide Proceedings No.R3/684 (23/2011-HRD) dated 23.12.2011, called for applications from eligible persons for the post of Shramik. Petitioner passed Class-X in 1999 and did ITI Diesel Mechanic course from the Government ITI Chittoor, in 2003 and di
Inordinate delay and suppression of facts in seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution bar the petitioner from obtaining the desired remedy.
Point of law: Living in the nation known for moving at a rapid pace towards gender equality, it is highly ironic that same nation’s instrumentalities like APSRTC, etc., through their highly discrimin....
The court affirmed the principle of providing alternative employment to medically unfit candidates, emphasizing timely action and adherence to judicial discipline.
Delay and laches are fatal in service matters, and unexplained delays in seeking appointment can bar claims, reinforcing the necessity for timely action in judicial proceedings.
Delay and laches can bar relief in writ petitions, especially when the petitioner fails to assert rights in a timely manner, rendering the case devoid of merits.
Compassionate appointment claims must be considered promptly; significant delays can negate the urgency required, making applications stale.
Compassionate appointment claims are contingent on urgency; significant delays may render applications stale and unjustified, nullifying the relief sought.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
