Quashed

G K Visalakshi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2024WP/19016/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders rejecting the petitioners' claim to continue as School Assistants, noting the authority had extended time for submitting explanations. The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' explanations objectively.

What did the court decide?

Orders rejecting petitioners' claim set aside; direction to consider explanations objectively.

G K Visalakshi Vs the State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI .

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 19016 OF 2024 ,

¶6

Between:

¶7

G K Visalakshi, W/o Vijaya Sekhar, Ag'e 53 years, Occ School Assistant (Telugu), IGMMCH School, A Camp, Kurnool.

¶8

S.Srikanth, S/o S.Janardhana Swamy, Age 45 years, Occ School Assistant (Telugu), CRRMMCH School, SAP Camp, Kurnool

¶9

P.Neelima, S/o S.Ramesh Babu, Age 53 years, Occ School Assistant (Telugu), CRRMMCH School, SAP Camp, Kurnool

¶10

A.Anitha, W/o Suresh Goud, Age 37 years, Occ School Assistant (Telugu), CRRMMCH School, SAP Camp, Kurnool

¶11

A.Rajani, W/o C.Harender Varma, Age 47 years, Occ School Assistant (Telugu), CRRMMCH School, SAP Camp, Kurnool

¶12

Shaik Mumtaj Begum, W/o S.Abdul Gani, Age 56 years, Occ School Assistant (Hindi), CRRMMCH School, SAP Camp, Kurnool

¶13

M.Shakeela Begum, W/o Sahik Younus, Age 40 years, Occ School Assistant (Hindi), SPSMMCH School, Bandimetia, Kurnool

¶14

Shaik Nusrath Fathima, W/o Masum Basha, Age 42 years, Occ School Assistant (Urdu), Municipal Corporation Urdu High School, Kadakpura, Kurnool

¶15

...PETITIONER

¶16

AND

¶17

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary^to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi.

¶18

2, The Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

¶19

The District Educational Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool^District.

¶20

Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner,^Kurnool Kurnool District.

¶21

The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction especially^{oneinthenatureofwrit} of mandamus declaring that (a) the proceedings issued in Rc.No.2133/B2/C1/2024-3, dated 17.08.2024 and 22.08.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and contemptuous and contrary to the orders passed by this Honourable Court in W.P.No. 16356 of 2024, dated 02.08.2024 and therefore the proceedings are liable to be set-aside (b)this Honourable Court may be pleased to call the Respondent No.3 and initiate suo-moto contempt proceedings for his deliberate and willful act in issuing proceedings dated 22.08.2024 (c)further declare that. Petitioners are^entitled to continue as School Assistants (Telugu/ Hindi/ Urdu) in their respective^School.

¶24

jANaiOF2024

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated i n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioners as School Assistants (Telugu/ Hindi/ Urdu) by suspending the operation of the proceedings issued in Rc.No.2133/B2/C1/2024-3, dated 17.08.2024 and 22.08.2024, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petltioner{s): SRI. SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES III

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to5: SRI J DILEEP KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

¶31

SRS J W.P.No.19016 of 2024

•Tj '* v» :rrr'

Page 1 of 4

APHC010374592024

V 7i

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶39

[3331]

¶40

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶41

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶42

PRESENT

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶44

WRIT PETITION NO: 19016/2024

¶45

Between:

¶46

G K Visalakshi and Others ‘

¶47

...PETITIONER(S)

¶48

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶49

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶50

SRI NIVAS A RAO MADIRAJU

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶52

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶53

The Court made the following order:

¶54

Impugning the respective show-cause notices dated 17.08.2024^and orders passed by respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.2133/B2/C1/2024 dated 22.08.2024, rejecting the cllairti of the petitioners to continue them in the post of School Assistants, the above writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, for the respondents.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that^show-cause no'lices dated 22.07.2024 were issued to the petitioners calling upon them to submit explanation as to why they should not be reverted. The petitioners, by

¶56

Page 2 of 4

¶57

SRS,J W.P.No.19016 of 2024

¶58

representation dated 23.07.2024 requested the authority to furnish certain documents. However, without furnishing those documents, the reversion orders were passed on 27.07.2024. Questioning the reversion orders, dated 27.07.2024, petitioners filed W.P.No.16356 of 2024 and this Court, by order dated 02.08.2024, suspended the reversion order. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that subsequently, petitioners submitted joining report on 04.08.2024. However, the authority without permitting the petitioners to join duty, issued show-cause notices dated 17.08.2024. He would further submit that petitioners submitted reply (request) dated 19.08.2024, intimating the authority about pendency of the writ petition and further stated that short period granted by the authority, is not sufficient to submit explanation. However, without considering the petitioners’ request and without seeking any clarification from the Court, in pursuance of the order, dated 02.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.16356 of 2024, respondent No.3 passed order dated 22.08.2024, rejecting the petitioners’^claim.

¶59

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, on instructions of the District Educational Officer, would submit that hearing was conducted on 02.09.2024, 'in the office of respondent No.3 and all the petitioners, except petitioner No.2, attended the hearing. He would further submit that respondent No.3 vide proceedings in R.C.No.2133/B2/C1/20243 dated 04.09.2024, granted further period of 15 days to the petitioners to submit explanation to the show-cause notice, dated 17.08.2024 and since time was extended, the proceedings, dated 22.08.2024 have no effect.

¶60

Thus, as seen from the material available on record, in the first round of litigation, reversion order was passed by respondent No.3 on 27.07.2024. The same was suspended by this Court, by order, dated 02.0‘8.2024 on the ground that respondent No.3 failed to refer to the show-cause notice and consider the explanation of the petitioners.

¶61

Page 3 of 4

¶62

SRS.J W.P.No.19016 of 2024

¶63

Pending W.P.No.16356 of 2024, the authority issued show-cause notices, dated 17.08.2024 on the similar grounds. The^petitioners, in their reply (request), in fact, ple&ded about the pendency^{ofthewritpetitionand} sought some more time to submit explanation. However,^{withoutconsidering} the reply (request), respondent No.3 passed the order,^{dated22.08.2024,} I V rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 8. Given the instructions, by proceedings Rc.No.2133/B2/C1/20243^dated 04.09.2024, the authority extended time by 15 days^{toenablethepetitioners} to submit their explanation. By extending the time to^{submitexplanationby} proceedings, dated 04.09.2024, the authority nullified^{theorderspassedon} 22.08.2024. Therefore, the order, dated 22.08.2024^{isliabletobesetaside.}

¶64

Hence, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission^{stage,withthe} consent of learned counsel on either side, setting^{asidetherespectiveorders} Rc.No.2133)B2/C1/2024, dated 22.08.2024, rejecting the passed vide petitioners’ claim.

¶65

all the relevant 10. The petitioners shall submit explanation by annexing documents, to the show-cause notices dated 17.08.2024,^{within15daysfrom} 04.09.2024 as extended by respondent No.3 by proceedings Rc.No.2133/B2/C1/20243 dated 04.09.2024. Upon the petitioners’^submitting the explanation, respondent No.3 shall consider the^{sameandpassorders} objectively. Respondent No.3 shall also consider the^{feasibilityofcontinuing} the petitioners as School Assistants i,n their respective^subjects in view of suspension of proceedings, dated 27.07.2024.

¶66

There shall be no order as costs.

¶67

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶68

KASIRAO ACHAW SD/-V<. //TRUE COPY// - registrar assist AN-RT ncER SECT!

¶69

To, 1

¶70

The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶71

¶72

The Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

¶73

The District Educational Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool^District.

¶74

Commissioner,Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool,^{KurnoolDistrict.}

¶75

The Regional Director of Municipal Administration,^{Ananthapuram,} Ananthapuram District.

¶76

One CC to Sri. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju Advocate [OPUC]

¶77

Two CCs to GP For Services III ,High Court Of Andhra^{Pradesh.[OUT]}

¶78

One CC to Sri J Dileep Kumar, SC For Municipal Corporation.[O^PUC].

¶79

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.19016 of 2024

|S 18 SEP 20?‘i mi;
Section

¶86

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

G K Visalakshi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G K Visalakshi 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

R R D Prasad Vs the State of Ap

Smt Gandlum. Veera Mrunalini, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Syam Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chadalavada Jalaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gurram Manjula Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J Suraj Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh