Allowed

N.S.R.K. Junior College, v. The Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education

Telangana HC22 Dec 2010WP/12068/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging orders transferring staff and closing an educational institution. The order granted interim stay and eventually set aside the impugned decisions due to violation of natural justice, as final confirmation orders were passed before the petitioner submitted an explanation in reply to a show-cause notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 26.5.2005 are set aside; petitioner-institution staff cannot be transferred and institution cannot be closed.

N.S.R.K. Junior College, Vs The Regional Joint… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶2

W.P. No. 12068 of 2005

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.No.Spl.B1/Surplus/Adjt/05 dated 26.5.2005 issued by 1^st respondent, the proceedings Rc.No.Admn-1A-2/1941/1997 dated 28.5.2005 issued by 2^nd respondent and the proceedings Rc.No.556-B/05 dated 28.5.2005 issued by 3^rd respondent as arbitrary and illegal; consequently to direct the respondents that the staff of petitioner-Institution cannot be transferred nor the institution be closed.

¶5

While admitting the writ petition, interim suspension of the impugned orders was granted. Under the impugned order dated 26.5.2005 of 1^st respondent - Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, several staff members of petitioner-College were declared as surplus and were allotted to various other colleges. According to petitioner, no surplus staff was available either as on the date of passing of the impugned order or as on today. Even otherwise, respondents have issued a show-cause notice on 28.5.2005 asking the petitioner-College to explain as to why it cannot be ordered for closure and why all the Groups/Sections cannot be discontinued with immediate effect from the year 2005-06 as per the conditions explained therein. According to the petitioner, the said show-cause notice was received by it on 4.6.2005 and a suitable reply was given on 6.6.2005. Even before the explanation was submitted by the petitioner and even two days prior to issuing of show-cause notice, it appears, 1^st respondent passed impugned order dated 26.5.2005. Thus, it is seen that the respondents have passed final orders even before issuance of show-cause notice. The procedure adopted by respondents is atrocious and liable to be deprecated. Merely because there was no strength as per the stand of the respondents, they cannot

¶6

act high-handedly in the matter. They must seek proper explanation and then pass appropriate orders as required under the law. No such procedure known to law was followed. On the other hand, as noticed above, it was done in a hurried manner.

¶7

Therefore, the impugned orders are in gross violation of principles of natural justice and on this ground alone they are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

¶8

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to

¶9

costs.

¶10

JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU.

¶11

Date: 22-12-2010.

¶12

MVB.

N.S.R.K. Junior College, v. The Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S.R.K. Junior College, v. The Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education

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

Vallamkonda Satyanarayana, Vs The District Collector

D.Suryanarayana Murthy Vs Sri Dr Garg

J. Foundation, Formerly known as Jagruthi Educational and Vs Mr. A.K. Tigidi IAS

N.Padmaiatha Vs District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

P. Malyadri Vs Sri D. Samba Siva Rao

Y. Pushpavathamma, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer