Allowed

Y. Bhulakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Dec 2023WP/12924/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed a Writ Petition finding discrimination in teacher transfers violated Article 14. Directed authorities to consider the petitioner for vacancies in Municipal schools upon reapportionment finalization.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 are directed to consider the petitioner's case for vacancies in Primary, Upper Primary, or High schools within the specified limits.

Y. Bhulakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.12924 OF 2023

¶4

ORAL ORDER:

¶5

Heard Sri G.Siva Prasada Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner.

¶6

The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:

¶7

“ It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the case of the petitioner to retain and transfer to the Tadepalli Mangalagiri Municipal Corporation limits as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to retain and transfer the petitioner to the Tadepalli Mangalagiri Municipal Corporation limits as SGT in the clear existing vacancy on par with as it was done in the case of similarly situated persons (Teachers) vide Order dated 11.07.2022 in Rc.No.4427/B2/2022 and to pass such order or orders….. ”

¶8

Sri G.Siva Prasada Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the limits of Mangalagiri - Tadepalli Municipal Corporation. The Writ Petitioner along with 45 other Secondary Grade Teachers were transferred to different places in the District. The Secondary Grade Teachers (45 in number), other than the present Writ Petitioner, approached this Court by filing

¶9

¶10

W.P.No.20458 of 2020 and batch. This Court, by order dated 25.01.2021, was pleased to dismiss the batch of Writ Petitions. The aggrieved Secondary Grade Teachers (45 in number) approached the Division Bench by filing W.A.No.80 of 2021 and batch. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, by Order dated 01.04.2021, was pleased to dismiss the W.A.No.80 of 2021 and batch. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that after dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the Secondary Grade Teachers have joined in the respective places of transfer and have been continuing there as such.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that by Proceedings bearing Memo No.1542525, dated 23.06.2022, the Department of School Education has taken a decision to transfer 45 Secondary Grade Teachers, who are working in Mangalagiri - Tadepalli, as a special case, till finalization of reapportionment of Teacher posts. In pursuance of the Proceedings dated 23.06.2022 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, the District Educational Officer, Guntur, by proceedings dated 11.07.2022, was pleased to transfer 45 Teachers as a special case till finalization of reapportionment of the Teachers (Ex.P.1). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that since the Writ Petitioner was the only teacher, who had been left out of the decision to retain (until finalization of reapportionment of Teacher posts in the District), she

¶12

¶13

has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25552 of 2022. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Order dated 16.08.2022 with a direction to the Authorities to consider the Representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner within eight weeks. Since the Respondents did not consider the case of the Writ Petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court, the Writ Petitioner filed C.C.No.4597 of 2022. While the Contempt Case was pending before this Court, the Representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner was disposed of by Proceedings of the District Educational Officer bearing Rc.No.4876/B2/2022, dated 22.11.2022 declining to render similar treatment to the Writ Petitioner.

¶14

At this stage, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would dispute the receipt of the Order dated 22.11.2022. In any case, he would submit that the Proceeding dated 22.11.2022 is only in response to the pendency of the Contempt Case.

¶15

Having noted the fact that the Respondent No.3 has issued the Proceedings bearing Rc.No.4876/B2/2022, dated 22.11.2022, the Contempt Case has been closed, giving liberty to the Writ Petitioner to prefer an Application before the Respondent Authorities and that on such submission of Application (Ex.P.7), the Respondents may consider the same in accordance with law.

¶16

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner has submitted another Representation on 21.03.2023. As the same has not been considered, the Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would seek parity on the basis of the Proceedings of Respondent No.1, dated 23.06.2022 and the Proceedings of Respondent No.3, dated 11.07.2022 and would submit that out of 46 Secondary Grade Teachers, who have been transferred, treating it as a special case, about 45 of them have been retained while 46^th individual, who is the present Writ Petitioner, was not considered only on the ground that the said Writ Petitioner did not approach this Court along with the batch of Writ Petitions (in W.P.No.20458 of 2020 and batch). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner has been discriminated by the Respondent Authorities, which is on the face of it, not only illegal but perverse, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Ms. M.Hemalatha, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III would submit that there are no vacancies in the limits of Mangalagiri - Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, so as to accommodate the Writ Petitioner.

¶20

¶21

Basing on the said statement, on the last occasion, this Court had directed the Learned Counsel for the Respondents to obtain instructions from the Officials. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted Written Instructions from the District Educational Officer, Guntur, dated 21.12.2023 to indicate that there are no clear vacancies in any of the Municipal Schools.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Official Respondents have not given any data with regard to the High Schools, which are being run by the State. He would submit that there are vacancies in the High Schools. He would also submit that by the Written Instructions dated 21.12.2023, the Official Respondents have not given the status of vacancies insofar as the High Schools in the area is concerned. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also submitted the vacancy position as existing on 10.10.2023, which indicates that there were several vacancies. He submits that this list is downloaded from the website of the District Educational Officer, Guntur.

¶23

Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that there was no occasion for either Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.3 to discriminate the Petitioner. Admittedly, it can be noticed through the facts of the case that out of 46 Secondary Grade Teachers, who have been transferred initially, from

¶24

¶25

the Mangalagiri - Tadepalli Municipal Limits, 45 Teachers have been retained even after the proceedings in the Writ Appeal have become final against all the Teachers. The dismissal of the batch of Writ Petitions and batch of Writ Appeals preferred by the Secondary Grade Teachers (other than the Writ Petitioner) have become final way back on 01.04.2021; whereas, the Respondents, for the reasons best known to them, after more than one and half year, have issued proceedings dated 23.06.2022 and 11.07.2022 retaining about 45 Secondary Grade Teachers.

¶26

In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petitioner has been discriminated by the Official Respondents, for the reasons best known to them. There is clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, insofar as the Writ Petitioner is concerned.

¶27

In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:-

¶28

(a) The Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 are directed to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner as and when the vacancy arise either in the Primary Schools, Upper Primary Schools or the High Schools within the limits of the Mangalagiri - Tadepalli Municipal Corporation.

¶29

¶30

(b) This Order shall be applicable until finalization of

¶31

reapportionment of Teachers, as indicated in the proceedings dated 23.06.2022 and 11.07.2022.

¶32

With these directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶34

_____________________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD,J

Date: 27.12.2023

ARR

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO.12924 OF 2023

¶41

Date: 27.12.2023

¶42

ARR

Y. Bhulakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Bhulakshmi, 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

Mullagari Mohan Rajkumar S/o. late M.Sankar Naidu Vs The State of A.P.

E. Lalithamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gorle Ramulu and Another Vs the Mro, Vizianagaram Dist and 4 Others

Sri. Bobbara Sundara Rao(Died) for Lr 2 Vs The Govt. A.P. Rep. By its Secretary, Revenue Department

Y Sandeep Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Chennamsetty Subramanaya Prasad Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh