Dismissed

M.Srinivasa Rao v. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC9 Aug 2017WP/16472/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged non-implementation of an Administrative Tribunal order directing transfer. Counsel admitted proceedings were issued in compliance, rendering the writ infructuous, which was disposed of on those terms.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petitions also stood disposed of.

M.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE GUDI SEVA SHYAM PRASAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.16472 of 2017

09.08.2017

Between:

M.Srinivasa Rao

..Petitioner

and

The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Hyderabad and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.M.Srinivasa Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3:Government Pleader for Services I (TS) Counsel for respondent No.4: -- The Court made the following:

¶11

¶12

CVNR,J & GSP,J W.P.No.16472 of 2017 09.08.2017

¶13

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶14

Feeling aggrieved by the purported non-implementation of order, dated 09.11.2015, in O.A.No.5965 of 2015 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the applicant therein filed this writ petition.

¶15

By the aforementioned order, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer from agency area to plain area in the vacancies that are available within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. According to the petitioner, the said order of the Tribunal was not complied with.

¶16

On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the Special Chief Secretary to Government (TS), Education Department, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he has, inter alia, stated that as far back as 29.02.2016, respondent No.3 issued appropriate proceedings in compliance with order, dated 09.11.2015, in O.A.No.5965 of 2015. A copy of the said proceedings has also been enclosed along with the counter-affidavit.

¶17

Mr.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that he has no instructions as to whether his client has received the aforementioned proceedings or not. He has, however, fairly admitted that with the issuance of the aforementioned proceedings, the order of the Tribunal stood complied with.

¶18

In the light of the above facts, the Writ Petition has become infructuous and the same is disposed of as such. The petitioner is, however, left free to question proceedings, dated 29.02.2016, of respondent No.3, if he feels aggrieved thereby.

¶19

¶20

CVNR,J & GSP,J W.P.No.16472 of 2017 09.08.2017

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.20220 and 20222 of 2017 filed by the petitioner shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶23

GUDI SEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J

¶24

09^th August, 2017

¶25

GHN

M.Srinivasa Rao v. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Srinivasa Rao v. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

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

Dr. Ntr University of Health Sciences, Vs Dr. Deen Dayal Bung

Union of India Vs E.Sreeramulu

K. Shedrak, Vs The District Collector, (Sw)

M/s. Bharsat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Central Administrative Tribunal

The State of Telangana Vs M.Venkata Narasirnha Goud

M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Reptd by its Registrar