Dismissed

Dr. K.N.Sree Kavitha, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2017WP/13284/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed a writ petition challenging a promotion order. Noting the grievance was already pending before the Government, the court did not entertain the petition but directed the Government to consider the representation, afford a hearing, and pass a speaking order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Government to consider petitioner's representation, afford notice and hearing, and pass speaking order within two months.

Dr. K.N.Sree Kavitha, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13284 OF 2017

¶3

Dated:17.04.2017

¶4

Between:

¶5

Dr. K.N. Sree Kavitha, W/o. Dr. Ananda Kumar, aged about 42 years, working as Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology, Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, R/o.7-1-405, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

¶6

. Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.13284 OF 2017

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Government in G.O.Rt.No.991, dated 19.11.2016, promoting the 3^rd respondent as Associate Professor. Aggrieved by the said promotion, petitioner filed representation, dated 22.02.2017. Alleging inaction on the said representation, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

¶15

The order impugned is passed by the Government. An aggrieved employee can represent to Government against promotion of another employee. Petitioner ventilated her grievance against promotion of the 3^rd respondent.

¶16

Since petitioner has already ventilated her grievance and the same is pending consideration, this Court is not inclined to entertain and keep the Writ Petition pending.

¶17

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and without prejudice to the rights of the 3^rd respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Government to examine the claim of the petitioner as ventilated in her representation, dated 22.02.2017, and if the authority is prima facie of the opinion that such representation merits consideration, put on notice the 3^rd respondent, afford due opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders. Representation made by the petitioner be considered and appropriate speaking order be passed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months

¶18

¶19

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

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

¶21

_____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J_ Date:17.04.2017 Note:- Issue C.C. by one week (B/o) KH

Dr. K.N.Sree Kavitha, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. K.N.Sree Kavitha, v. The State of Telangana

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

N.v.a.Raju, Vs The Apsrtc

Capt. Vepa Ramprasad, Vs Union of India

K.S.Satyanarayana, Vs Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited

N. Ramesh Babu, Vs T.S.R.T.C.

Rajani Devadas Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Sk.Ibrahim Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation