High Court · 2025

the aff davr r up out of turn fina hearing of the Writ petition. "a n .,pp#rjiril:ilTJl1:ff ffi[;:"H,::_: l:.:::l for the p-.titioner: M/s. K.UDAYA sRt ;#ff :l [r,T: [;:5:l;5ili il:i : g,k The Court made $e following: ORDER 3t :fo.3y,1xg, Y !', TTIE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P'SREE SUDHA oNNo.1 t44a of 2()08 WRIT ORDER: This writ petition is filed by S'sarada' Oflice Assistant at University of Hyderabad for declaring the secret advertisement/ notifrcation of respondent No' l-university vide Notification No.UH/P'II/B7 I 2OOB / 17 dated 04.04-2008 S il1ega1 and arbitrarY' 2. Petitioner herein contended that that initially she was appointed as Junior Office Assistant in the year 1989 and later designated as Offrce Assistant in Department of Computer Centre in thg non-teaching staff category and working since 2OO3' lt is further contended that respondent No.1-universitJr secretly called for applications from respondent No' 1-P ' Raghuram (S1'No'49 in the seniority list) and alother applicant i'e'' J'Tara Singh Naik (Sl'No'36 in the seniority list) respectively for the ' promotion of Senior Assistant vide Notifrcation No'UH/P'lllB7 l2OO8/ 17 dated o4.o4.2o08andinvitedapplicationsfromtheabove candidateswithoutinformingtotheothertwoeligibletwo candidates i.e', Petitioner and one Mr. K.Ramachander the seniority list) respectively from the respondent No.l-universrty and in the said notification it was (Sl.No.23 2 t mentioned ttLat merit/trade test for Departmental prromotion in respect of various non_teaching cadres will be conducted on 15.04 20Cg ard also mentioned that eligible cemdidates may forv'ard their application to the respondent No.1_ universie or or before 10.O4.2OOg. petitioner further 'contended tha.t she came to know about the said not-ification on 2l.O4.l'OO€i and then gave representation to the Registrar, University of Hyderabad on 22.O4.2OOL. Dulng the pendencl. ,tf h,:r application, respondent No.2 was promoted as Senior .\ssistant on 19.05.2OO8 ard the sajd order copy was releas,:d on 2I.OS.2OOg and petitioner got it through their depa rtment on 24.OS.2OOS and thus stated that selection o1 res pondent No.2 is arbitra4r a,,d she h^s also enclosed n otification dated 04 .O4.2OOI and fiied their seniority lis - br:t as per the notification it is to be circulated and to be ahxeC in a,ll the notice boards. petitioner further stated that their Department is at dlistance of 1 kjlc,meter from the main r:.r1pqs and w rfully notification rx,.as issued with a clear motive to select respondent No.2 without ,giving any wide put licity to the other competitive candidates. 3. In a countr:r frled by respondent No.2 he oppose,C the same and s tated that he is eligible for promotion on competition of th::ee (03) years of service subject to the rnerit Y 5 in the test and interview and accordingly he was promoted on i9.05.2008 and also contended that he had submitted his joining report on 2l 'O5 '2OO8 and he also enclosed his application, hall ticket, interview letter' promotion order and joining report. He stated that as per the notification dated ,o4.o4.2ooa'itwasSenttoallthedepartmentsanddisplayed in atl the notice boards ald given wide publicity' In a counter fiIed by respondent No' l-university it is 4. contended that notification was disseminated to aI departments and schools through the Personal Section by dispatch and it was prominently displayed on all notice boards including at the Computer Centre where the petitioner was employed as such contention of the petitioner' it was not circulated is baseless and candidates were also given ample time of 15 days to respond to the notifrcation but she gave representatio rt' on 22'04'2008 and it was considered by Vice Chancellor and he found that there was no irregularity in the conduct of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and the selection of respondent No'2 was made afier due diligence in accordance with the prescribed norrns' It is further stated that alother eligible candidate K'Ramachander working in EstateSection,AdministrativeBuildingdidnotapplyforthe post in spite of displaying the notification in the notice board 4 arrd thus thr: argument of the petitioner that they acted untairly uith the two other eligible candidates is not proper ald also stal.ed that after receiving the complain t of the petitioner stat.ement of Mr. Suresh/Office attendal t of the Computer CerLtre who actually received the notification was recorded and ,a. note was submitted for consideration of the Vice-Chan<:ellor. It is further contended that mrtreover, petitioner lLad alternative remedy of hling a statutory appeal under Section il2 of the University Act but she failed to follow the same and ;lus requested the Court to dismiss t.he writ petition.

5. Hower er, it is t}le contention of learned counsel .!or the petitioner tlLat .!he said consideration of her represer.tation was not commruricated to her and thus question of informing her regardin 3 right of appeal does not arise as there u,as no response fro.a ir:spondent No. 1 she approached this Oourt. The counter was frled by responderit No. I ln Jttly, 2024 though writ petition frled in the year 200g. It is for the respondent Nc. 1 to inform to the writ petitioner regardin g the rejection of complaint and it is for them to inform rega.ding the right of apperil but t].ey failed to do so. Therefore, this Court finds leat it is just and reasonable to grarrl an opportunity to the writ petitioner to give representation tc, the g 5 respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks from today i'e', on or before 20.03.2025 and it is for the respondent No'l to consider the same after due enqury by duly St"it'g opportunity to the writ petitioner.

6. With the above said direction, writ petition is disposed of and respondent No. 1 is directed to complete the entire process witJlin a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY'/ To SD'- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI ON OFFICER n vers'1v Gach B'w ; gl*iH fi.,f?[fhf$ffiinHti**;#

5. Two CD CoPies PSK. PSK 6 *r-b.- E*r HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 ( ORDER WP.No.11448 of 2008 o$ 1uE S 14 /4 c^ o o t ll I Apn Z0Z5 ( ('I c. sparcrrEt * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @$4