Allowed

M.Madhavi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Dec 2024WP/2033/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a Language Pandit (Hindi) seeking seniority based on her initial appointment date rather than the date of her inter-district transfer. The court allowed the petition because the respondents failed to produce the alleged undertaking letter wherein the petitioner supposedly agreed to take the last rank in the new district.

What did the court decide?

Directs respondents to assign seniority to the petitioner in Prakasam district in the cadre of Language Pandit (Hindi) from the date of her joining on 17-10-2002 within three months.

M.Madhavi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

[3310]

¶2

APHC010029182021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2033/2021

Between:

M.madhavi,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.G VENKATA KRISHNAIAH

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶18

The Court made the following Order:

¶19

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶20

seeking the following relief:

¶21

“…..to issue a writ, order or a direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to assign seniority to the petitioner in Prakasam District in the cadre of Language Pandit (Hindi) from the date of her Joining on 17-10-2002 in pursuance of her initial appointment vide the proceedings of D.E.0., Kurnool District in Rc.No.11885/A3/2002, dated 8-10-2002 instead of her date of Joining on 21-11-2009 in Prakasam District in pursuance of her Inter District Mutual Transfer to Prakasam District…….”

¶22

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner secured 9^th rank in the selection conducted in pursuance of the notification issued by DSC-2002, Kurnool and appointed as Grade-II Hindi Pandit by the District Educatinal Officer, Kurnool in his proceedings dated 08.10.2002 and posted to ZPHS, Venkatapuram, Atmakur Mandal of Kurnool district and the petitioner joined on 17.10.2002. The post of Grade-II Hindi Pandit was later re-designated as Language Pandit (Hindi). In the year 2009, when the Government has taken up Inter District tranfers, as the husband of the petitioner is working as teacher in Prakasam district, the petitioner applied for Inter District Transfer from Kurnool district to Prakasam district on mutual basis with one Mogal Noorulla Baig, who is working as Grade-II Hindi Pandit, at MPUPS, Ramapuram of Prakasam district. Accordingly, the District Educational Officer, Kurnool in his proceedings dated 19.11.2009 relieved the petitioner from Kurnool district. Thereafter, the petitioner reported before the 3^rd respondent and the 3^rd respondent by his proceedings dated 24.11.2009 posted the petitioner to MPUPS, Santharavuru, Chinnaganjam Mandal of Prakasam district. While things stood thus, the 3^rd respondent prepared a combined seniority list of SGTs and Language Pandits (Hindi) for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Hindi) for verification on 31.10.2019. The petitioner appointed in the year 2002, but she is placed in the said seniority list amoung the SGTs and Language Pandits, who are appointed in the year 2009 on the ground that she

¶24

¶25

came to Prakasam district in the year 2009 by way of Inter District Transfer. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶26

The 3^rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the writ petition. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has aplied for Inter District Transfer from Kurnool district to Prakasam district and the 3^rd respondent has relieved the petitioner vide Progs. Rc.No.4281/A8/2009, dated 19.11.2009 duly mentioning the conditions that, she shall abide by the terms and conditions as stipulated by the Government and are liable for any action deemed fit for violation if any. It is further stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued orders that all the LPH posts in the state have upgraded as School Assistant (Hindi) posts and the 2^nd respondent has issued instructions to take up promotions to the post of School Assistant (Hindi) from LPH/SGT cadres. Accordingly, the combined seniority list has been prepared for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Hindi) from the LPH/SGTs who are eligible for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Hindi). The name of the petitioner also included in the seniority list as per her date of joining in the district. The teachers who were transferred from other district to this district, the seniority should be considered as per their date of joining in the district, as they were transferred with their own request and also they have submitted undertaking letter that, they shall last rank in their category. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶27

¶28

Heard Mr.G.Venkata Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, for the respondents.

¶29

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the transfer of the petitioner from Kurnool district to Prakasam district, no new vacancy was created for the petitioner and she was only transferred into existing vacancy arisen due to transfer of Sri Mogal Noorulla Baig from Prakasam district to Kurnool district. The petitioner is not addition to the cadre strength of the Language Pandits in Prakasam district and therefore nobody’s seniority is affected. But treating the petitioner as a fresh candidate appointed in the year 2009 and placing her below the SGTs and Language Pandits, who were appointed in the year 2009, in pursuance of 2009 DSC is not tenable under law. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶30

Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the Government has provided a provision to the teachers who are requesting for transfer to other district under spouse/mutual grounds. Accordingly, the petitioner has applied for Inter District Transfer on mutual ground and requested for consideration. The petitioner has submitted a declaration stating that she is willing to take last-rank in the transferred district i.e., Prakasam district in their category. He further submits that, the Government has issued instructions regarding to Inter

¶31

¶32

District Transfer vide Memo No.13703/Ser.V/2007, dated 06.06.2009 that, all the teachers who are seeking Inter District Transfer should give an undertaking that they will forgo their seniority and take last rank in the new unit. Accordingly, the seniority of the petitioner shall be given in the cadre of LPH in Prakasam District as her date of joining in the district i.e., 21.11.2009. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶33

7. Perused the record.

¶34

It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has given undertaking letter stating that she is willing to take last-rank in the transferred district i.e., Prakasam district in their category.

¶35

At the time of hearing, this Court directed the respondents to file the undertaking letter given by the petitioner. Even though an ample opportunity was given, the respondents failed to file the undertaking letter given by the petitioner before this Court.

¶36

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, the respondents are failed to substantiate their contention for considering the case of the petitioner in a proper manner. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition, directing the respondents to assign seniority

¶37

¶38

to the petitioner in Prakasam district in the cadre of Language Pandit (Hindi) from the date of her joining on 17.10.2002 in pursuance of her initial appointment vide the proceedings of D.E.O., Kurnool district in Rc.No.11885/A3/2002, dated 08.10.2002, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶42

Date : 20-12-2024 BMS

M.Madhavi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakunthala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Mahaboob Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Siva Prasada Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Damodharam Vs the Syndicate Bank

Smt. a. Anantha Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Rajasekhara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh