Partly allowed

V Vishnu Murthy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Jul 2023WP/18804/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged relief/transfer proceedings moving staff to a new division mid-academic year. Court avoided merits, directing the respondent to decide on pending representations within two weeks while staying the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to decide on representations within two weeks; impugned proceedings dated 19.07.2023 stayed until then.

V Vishnu Murthy Vs the State of Ap — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.18804 of 2023

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶6

“...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly

¶7

one in the nature of WRIT of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned relieving/ transfer Proceedings No.552/SE/IC/VSP/EB/EC-I, II and III dated 19/07/2023 directing to relieve the employees/petitioners to report immediately at Narsipatnam Division provisionally with effect from 25/07/2023, the proceedings No.SE/IC/VSP/AB, dated 19/07/2023 issued by the 6^th Respondent in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.140, Water Resources (MI.A) Department dated 13/04/2023 in the middle of the academic year, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and interalia direct the respondents to retain the petitioners at Visakhapatnam Division and pass.....”

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the relieving/transfer proceedings No.552/SE/IC/VSP/EB/ECI,II&III, dated 19.07.2023 directing to relieve the employees/petitioners herein to report immediately at Narsipatnam Division, provisionally with effect from 25.07.2023 and the proceedings No.SE/IC/VSP/AB, dated 19.07.2023 of

¶9

¶10

VS,J W.P.No.18804 of 2023

¶11

the 6^th respondent issued in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.140, Water Resources (MI.A) Department, dated 13.04.2023.

¶12

On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 19.07.2023, there is a clear direction to the concerned authorities to relive the employees/petitioners herein with a direction to report before the competent authority of the Circle/Division/Sub Divisions to which the employees’ services have been provisionally allotted to, so as to enable the officers to function, with effect from 25.07.2023.

¶13

Though there was a specific direction in the said proceedings that the authority shall relieve the employees and the employees shall report on 25.07.2023, so far, the authorities concerned have not relieved the employees/petitioners and on the other hand, the grievance of the petitioners is that even without passing any orders on their representation made immediately on the next date i.e., 20.07.2023, the respondents are making hectic efforts to proceed further in pursuance of the proceedings dated 19.07.2023.

¶14

In view of the same, instead of going into merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by direction the 6^th respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioners on

¶15

¶16

VS,J W.P.No.18804 of 2023

¶17

20.07.2023 duly taking into consideration the G.O.Rt.No.140, dated 13.04.2023 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to act upon the impugned proceedings dated 19.07.2023.

¶18

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶19

SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶20

27.07.2023 GSS

V Vishnu Murthy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Vishnu Murthy v. the State of Ap

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

Bantanahal Gopal Vs the State of Ap

M Sivaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Ap

P.Srinivasa Rao and 11 Others Vs the M.D., Apsrtc Hyderabad and 2 Others

M/S. K S R and Company Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.K.Anantharaju and Co., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh