Partly allowed

K Venkateswarlu v. The District Educational Officer

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Dec 2019WP/19378/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was filed by a Language Pandit aggrieved by the non-disposal of his representation to occupy a clear vacancy after another employee failed to report for duty. The court directed the first respondent to pass orders on the pending representation expeditiously without examining the merits.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's pending representation dated 22.11.2019 expeditiously.

K Venkateswarlu Vs The District Educational… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

Writ Petition No.19378 of 2019

¶3

Order :

¶4

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶5

‘……to declare the impugned action of the 1^st respondent in not considering the petitioner claim for accommodating in a clear vacancy at Z.P.H.S. Ganapavaram, Nandendla Mandal, by disposing of his representation as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as Language Pandit (Telugu) Gr.II on 24.01.2012 and his services were regularized in the said post; pursuant to the Government Order issued in the year 2018, the posts of Language Pandits Grade-II were upgraded to that of School Assistant (Language); as per the seniority, the petitioner is entitled to chose a clear vacancy, which arose at Z.P.H.School, Ganapavaram, Nadendla Mandal, but one Y.Nagamalleswari, who is on long leave, opted the above place and the first respondent directed the said individual to report to duty within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order; as the first respondent considered her request, the petitioner was compelled to opt Z.P.H.S., Chinnakondrupadu; subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the said Y.Nagamalleswari failed to report duty in the place where she opted, even after expiry of 15 days time limit fixed by the first respondent; thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the 1^st respondent on 22.11.2019 requesting him to accommodate the petitioner in the clear vacancy caused due to non reporting of the said individual, but the said

¶7

¶8

representation is pending before the first respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶9

Learned Government Pleader for School Education, appearing for the respondents submits that the 1^st respondent would pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 22.11.2019 of the petitioner.

¶10

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, if the representation of the petitioner dated 22.11.2019, is still pending before the first respondent, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders therein, strictly, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶11

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J.

¶13

Date: 03.12.2019 Note: Furnish CC in three days (BO) BL

¶14

¶15

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶16

Writ Petition No. 19378 of 2019

¶17

Dated : 03.12.2019

¶18

K Venkateswarlu v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Venkateswarlu v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mediboina Sreedhar Reddy, Guntur Dist Vs Director of Higher Education, Hyd and 3 Ot

P.Lakshmi Narasamma, Vs the STAThe State of Andhra Pradesh Te of Ap

Alamoori Narayana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Lalam Ramalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tolapu Dasu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G Nagaraju Vs the State of Ap