Disposed

Kolli Ravi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Dec 2020WP/23859/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge directed the State Government to consider the petitioners' representation regarding the continuation of their part-time teaching services in light of a specific circular, disposing the writ petition without adjudicating other contentions.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the representation dated 10.11.2020 in view of the circular dated 05.10.2020 within four weeks.

Kolli Ravi, Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.23859 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶4

“to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, questioning the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioners in their respective posts of Part-time Teachers in the respondents schools/colleges as per the Circular vide Rc.No.Secy/Peshi/0065/2020 dated 05.10.2020 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in their respective posts of Part-time Teachers in the respondents Schools/Colleges and pass such other order.”

¶5

The petitioners are working as Part-time teachers in Respondent’s Department for the past several years. They are having different qualifications viz., M.A., M.Sc., with B. Ed., and B.A., B.Sc., with B. Ed., etc. The petitioners though appointed in their respective schools and colleges through examination by their qualification, interviews were also conducted and demo classes were also convened. After satisfying the requirements they were appointed on temporary basis and now they crossed the maximum age for appointment in the Government services. The petitioners are drawing meagre amounts from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.18,000/- but they are discharging their duties and handling the responsibility as regular teacher for all practical purposes and imparting classes to all the students without any remarks from anybody at any point of time.

¶6

¶7

The petitioners are working for the last many years and now their services were dis-engaged by the Government and the same is questioned by the petitioners in W.P.No.2824 of 2020 and W.P.No.3300 of 2020 and said petitions are coming on for filing counter-affidavits. While the matter stood thus, the State Government has issued a Circular vide RC.No.Secy/ Peshi/ 0065/2020 dated 05.10.2020. In pursuance of the said circular, the petitioners submitted a representation on 10.11.2020 requesting to consider their case positively in terms guidelines contained in the circular. But, till date no action was taken by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the inaction on the part of the respondents is illegal and contrary and requested to apply the guidelines contained in the circular and engage the services of the petitioners in various schools and colleges where they were appointed on temporary basis.

¶8

Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly requested to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 10.11.2020 submitted by the petitioners in terms of the Circular vide RC.No.Secy/Peshi/0065/2020 dated 05.10.2020. Learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representation dated 10.11.2020 submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, keeping in view of the circular referred above.

¶9

Recording the submissions of both the counsel, it is needless to adjudicate the matter on all other issues and it is suffice to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 10.11.2020 keeping the in view the circular dated 05.10.2020 issued by the State Government within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

¶11

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without touching other contentions, with the consent of both the counsel.

¶12

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶13

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 23.12.2020

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO.23859 OF 2020

¶19

Date: 23-12-2020

¶20

Kolli Ravi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolli Ravi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Venkatesh Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

CherukuruBabavalli, Vs The Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration

Yettapu Padmavathamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chunduru Prasanna Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Ramana Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanchumarthi Sarojini Devi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh