Dismissed

Sri K C Vannappa v. The Director

Telangana HC18 Apr 2012WP/10895/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an educational service lecturer judicially declared senior to a junior third respondent, challenged the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order terminating his Additional Charge as Regional Inspection Officer. After the third respondent assumed charge, the High Court refused to interfere, prioritizing smooth office administration.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.

Sri K C Vannappa Vs The Director — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10895 of 2012

¶3

Dated:18.04.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri K.C.Vannappa.

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Director, Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad, And others.

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.10895 of 2012

¶12

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶13

The petitioner herein was a lecturer in the Andhra Pradesh educational service. From the position of Junior Lecturer in 1982, he rose to the position of Principal in 2002. He also held important positions in the intermediate education sector. By an order dated 31.01.2012 he was asked to take Full Additional Charge (FAC) for the post of Regional Inspection Officer (RIO) of the Board of Intermediate. But, by another proceedings dated 23.02.2012, the third respondent herein was posted as RIE. The petitioner contends that the third respondent is junior to him in the cadre of Principals, and therefore, he

¶14

cannot be replaced as RIO (FAC). So contending, he approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) by filing O.A.No.1527 of 2012 challenging the order posting the third respondent as RIO. Initially on 27.02.2012, the APAT suspended the said order, and the same was extended up to 29.03.2012. Respondents 1 to 3 herein moved an application to vacate the interim suspension. The same, being VMA No.412 of 2012, was allowed vacating the order of interim suspension dated 27.02.2012, which was extended up to 29.03.2012. This order is assailed in the present writ petition.

¶15

It is fairly well settled that ordinarily against the interlocutory order passed by the APAT a writ Court would be more slow to interfere in the matter. Be that as it is, the Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012, and therefore, if he is deprived of the right to hold the post of RIO at least as FAC, it would cause hardship and prejudice to his interest. Keeping the submission in view, we directed the Standing Counsel for Board of Intermediate Education (BIE) to inform us as to whether any new incumbent has joined the post of RIO, Anantapur.

¶16

Today the Standing Counsel has placed before us the joining report of the third respondent submitted to the Secretary of BIE, which shows that the third respondent assumed the charge on 03.04.2012 duly relieving the petitioner herein. In view of this, if this Court interfere with the well considered order of the APAT, it would not only cause inconvenience to the third respondent, but also hamper the smooth administration of the Office of RIO. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.

¶17

The Writ Petition, for the above reasons, is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶19

(G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶20

18.04.2012 vs

Sri K C Vannappa v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K C Vannappa v. The Director

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

M/s Sri Vishnu Enterprises Vs The Authorized Officer

Dr. Annepu Nirmala Vs The Anakapalle Municipality

Gorthi Viswanatham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Srinivas Rao, Vs Special Court under a.P.Land Grabbing

K.V. Narsimhulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dabagardens Residents Welfare Association Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh