Dismissed

R Madhavi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Jul 2022WP/9081/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioners' writ petition seeking to set aside transfer proceedings on the ground that an effective alternative remedy of appeal was available under the relevant Government Order. The petition was dismissed without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of appeal within four weeks.

R Madhavi Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.10658, 9081, 9132, and 10768 of 2021

¶2

COMMON ORDER :

¶3

Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

¶4

Heard Mr. G.V.L. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for ServicesIII appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.

¶5

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the threshold argued that the impugned proceedings dated 18.02.2020 issued by the 3^rd respondent are in mechanical way and were issued even without looking into the Appeal filed by the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 18.02.2020 are liable to be set aside.

¶6

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents fairly argued that the petitioners have no locus standi to seek directions from this Court to consider the reposting them as per Seniority and entitlement points by reviewing the transfer orders in different villages by suspending the impugned proceedings dated 18.02.2021 of the 3^rd respondent, as per the guidelines vide G.O.Ms.No.54 School Education (Ser.II) Department, dated 12.10.2020 and vide Memo

¶7

¶8

No.13029/11/2020-EST-3, dated 12.11.2020 of the Director of School Education, A.P., Amaravathi is not feasible. Further, learned Government Pleader contended that though the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy of Appeal available under Guideline-19 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020, they straightaway approached this Court which is not maintainable under Article 226 of Constitution of India and hence prayed to dismiss these writ petitions.

¶9

In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the Guideline No.19 of the above said G.O., for better adjudication of this Court, which reads as under:

¶10

19. Appeal.

¶11

(i) An appeal against the orders of the District Educational officer shall lie with the Regional Joint Director of School Education concerned, and an appeal against the orders of the Regional Joint Director of School Education shall lie with the Commissioner of School Education such appeal should be submitted within 10 days.

¶12

(ii) All such appeals shall be disposed off by the Appellate authorities concerned within 15 days from the date of receipt of the appeal.

¶13

(iii) The teachers who have any grievance on the transfer counseling should avail all levels of appeal provisions before going for other legal remedies.”

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader for Services-III, this Court is of the prima facie view that when the petitioners have effective alternative remedy of appeal as per Guideline

¶15

¶16

No.19 of the said G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 12.10.2020, they cannot seek relief of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Therefore, without touching into merits of the case, these Writ Petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to avail an effective remedy of Appeal available under Guideline No.19 of the G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such appeals being filed, the 3^rd respondent is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioners accordingly.

¶17

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶19

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶20

Date : 12-07-2022 Gvl

¶21

¶22

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION Nos.10658, 9081, 9132, and 10768 of 2021

¶24

Date : 12.07.2022

¶25

Gvl

R Madhavi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Madhavi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hussain Peera, Vs The Executive Engineer

Gurrala Abraham Vs Union of India

G Adinarayana Vs Ap Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

V Ratnakumar Vs State of Ap

T. Tandava Krishnamurthy Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation

Dr. G.J. Sujnana Raju, Vs The State of Ap