Md. Anees Ahmed, and 19 Others, v. Prl.Secy., Education Dept., Hyd., and 5 Others

Telangana HC8 Oct 2018WP/35846/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions filed for implementation of Tribunal Common Orders were dismissed. The Court held that grievance against subsequent proceedings by District Educational Officers must be redressed through independent writ proceedings, not this petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were closed, and liberty was reserved to the petitioners to approach the Court independently regarding any grievance with the proceedings dated 05.10.2018.

Md. Anees Ahmed, and 19 Others, Vs Prl.Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON Nos.35846 AND 35848 OF 2017

¶3

COMMON ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶4

The petitioners in these two cases are the applicants in O.A.Nos.2952 of 2011 and 2949 of 2011 respectively on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. They filed these writ petitions seeking implementation of the common orders dated 18.03.2013 and 12.04.2013 passed by the Tribunal in the said O.As.

¶5

We are now informed by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, State of Telangana, that the District Educational Officers of Mahabubnagar and Karimnagar Districts issued proceedings dated 05.10.2018 individually, pursuant to the aforestated common orders passed in the O.As.

¶6

It may be noted that by the later order dated 12.04.2013, the Tribunal added a corrigendum to its earlier common order dated 18.03.2013, whereby it stated that consideration of the cases of the applicants in the O.As. would be subject to the orders, if any, passed in SLP No.30636 of 2009 pending before the Supreme Court. The said SLP was disposed of on 25.10.2013 and the present proceedings dated 05.10.2018 were issued by the District Educational Officers of Mahabubnagar and Karimnagar Districts in terms thereof.

¶7

In the event the petitioners in these two cases have any grievance with the aforestated proceedings dated 05.10.2018 issued by the respective District Educational Officers, they would necessarily have to seek redressal thereof by way of independent proceedings in accordance with law and the correctness of such proceedings cannot be the subject

¶8

¶9

matter of judicial review in the present writ petitions which were filed only for implementation of the common orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶10

The writ petitions are accordingly closed reserving liberty to the

¶11

petitioners to do so in accordance with law.

¶12

Pending miscellaneous petitions, including I.A.No.1 of 2018 filed in W.P.No.35848 of 2017 for dispensing with the presence of the first respondent therein, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶13

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J

¶14

_________________
M. GANGA RAO, J
Date: 08.10.2018
IBL

Md. Anees Ahmed, and 19 Others, v. Prl.Secy., Education Dept., Hyd., and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Anees Ahmed, and 19 Others, v. Prl.Secy., Education Dept., Hyd., and 5 Others

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

D.V. Ramakrishna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs G.Yellamma

N.Ramesh Kumar Vs Telangana State Beverages Corporation Limited

D.Bhadra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

B.Narsimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana

S.Bhaskar, Ciricilla Dist and 14 Others Vs Prl. Secretary, Education Dept., Hyd and 3 Others