ramachandra rao

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Group I service exams?= The writ petition is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short the ‘Tribunal’) dated 30-12-2011, in a batch of applications being O.A.No.9928 of 2011 and batch. By the order impugned, the Tribunal directed stay of all further proceedings including conduct of interviews relating to selection of candidates to the posts of Group-I services notified under Notification No. 39 of 2008 and the Supplementary Notification No.10 of 2009=In order to provide a fair opportunity to all the candidates including candidates who appeared at the interviews to participate in the lis pendency before the Tribunal, we consider it appropriate to direct the State and the Commission to intimate in writing to each of the candidates who would appear at the interview, that the selection including the process of interviews will be subject to the result of original applications, pending adjudication before the Tribunal. The State Government shall also intimate that the selection is subject to the outcome of the original applications pending adjudication before the Tribunal by publicity in the daily press and electronic media. On the analysis and for the reasons above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of permitting the Commission to proceed with the process of selection including the process of oral interviews, pursuant to the general recruitment Notification No. 39 of 2008 and Supplemental Notification No. 10 of 2009, subject however to the condition that no orders of appointment shall be issued without obtaining specific orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 9928 of 2011 and batch.

  THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY   W.P. No. 68  of 2012           Dated 02-01-2012   Between:   The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commision, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. …Petitioner Vs. P. Prasanna Kumar and others. …Respondents     THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE … Continue reading

time was essence of the contract and that the appellant did not pay the balance of the consideration, within the stipulated time. =The trial Court has also analyzed the evidence pertaining to the financial solvency of the appellant. It was observed that the appellant did not possess adequate means to pay the balance of consideration as on the date of filing of the suit much less the date stipulated for payment of balance of consideration. This Court does not find any substantial question of law nor is it inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.587 OF 2011 20-06-2011 Komatireddy Buchi Reddy Pannala Narsimha Reddy COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri G.Machusudhan Reddy COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: N.Ramachandra Rao :JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.50 of 2002 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir against the respondent for the relief of specific performance of … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,475 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com