Disposed

M.Mohan v. The District Collector

Telangana HC7 Jan 2020WP/28506/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenges refusal to post in mandals other than Bheemini Mandal, claiming threats. Court directs petitioner to submit fresh representation within two weeks for the respondents to reconsider transfer without prior prejudice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for transfer within two weeks and the respondents to consider it within four weeks.

M.Mohan Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO.28506 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 26.10.2019 and its consequential memo dated 18.11.2019 issued by the 1^st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and void and sought a consequential direction to direct the respondents to transfer and post the petitioner as Senior Assistant in any one of the existing vacancy at Jaipur Mandal or Bheemaram Mandal or Cheenuru Mandal or Manchiryal Mandal, except Bheemini Mandal, where the very same respondents did not permit the petitioner to join duty, by holding the action of the respondents in not posting the petitioner in any one of the existing vacancy at Jaipur or Bheemaram or Cheenuru or Mahchiryal etc., by considering the petitioner’s fresh representation dated 20.11.2019 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶4

Heard Ch. Jagannatha Rao, counsel for the petitioner, and Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.

¶5

It has been contended by the petitioner that earlier the petitioner was posted to Bheemini Mandal vide proceedings dated 19.04.2018 and the petitioner could not join the said place as the local MLA of Bheemini Mandal was creating some problems to the petitioner. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents and the respondents modified the

¶6

AKS,J W.P.No.28506_2019

¶7

¶8

transfer orders and posted the petitioner to Jaipur vide proceedings dated 29.05.2018 and since then, the petitioner has been discharging his duties at Jaipur. It is also contended that while the petitioner was discharging his duties at Jaipur, the respondents have once again transferred the petitioner to Bheemini Mandal vide proceedings dated 26.10.2019 knowing fully well that the petitioner is having some issues with the local MLA of Bheemini Mandal. In such circumstances, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents to transfer him to any Mandal other than Bheemini Mandal, but the respondents have rejected the request of the petitioner vide orders dated 18.11.2019.

¶9

Therefore, counsel for the petitioner contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to transfer him to any Mandal other than Bheemini Mandal, as the petitioner is having life threat in Bheemini Mandal.

¶10

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that first the petitioner should report at Bheemini Mandal and make a request for modifying the transfer orders, but in the instant case, the petitioner is absconding from duties without reporting at Bheemini Mandal. Therefore, if only the petitioner submits a representation afresh to the respondents, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶11

AKS,J W.P.No.28506_2019

¶12

¶13

This Court, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a representation afresh to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, staking his claim for transfer and posting him to any Mandal other than Bheemini Mandal. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner without being influenced by the earlier rejection orders and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in another four weeks thereafter.

¶14

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
7 th January, 2020
v v

M.Mohan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mohan v. The District Collector

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

Md.Muqthadeer Ahmed Vs The Telangana State Power Generation of Company Limited (Tsgenco) and 3 others

Rajendera Kumar Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

P. Maheshwari Vs The Telangana State Public Service Commission

Macharla Suresh , Vs The State of Telangana

Vaddapalli Raju Vs The State of Telangana

G. Phani Kumar Vs The Telangana State Power Generation Corporation, And 2 Others