Dismissed

Pdtsssa v. E.Prabhudas and 3 Others

Telangana HC9 Dec 2021WA/110/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of common writ appeals filed by Inclusive Education Resource Teachers challenging orders from the previous academic year (2015-16). The court held that since the academic year had ended and benefits were already distributed, the appeals were infructuous and dismissed them. Liberty to approach the court again in future grievances was granted.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of all writ appeals as infructuous; liberty granted to approach the Court in future if controversy arises; costs against none.

Pdtsssa Vs E.Prabhudas and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE^{NINTH DAYOF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYONE

¶3

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{N. TUKARAMJI}

¶7

WRIT APPEAL N

¶8

S: 98. 10'1. 108 .110,^{11s & 118 0F2016}

¶9

WA NO.98 0F^2016:

¶10

Writ Appeal under^{ctause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred againstthe order dated} 20-11-2015 in W.P.No.16375^{of 2015 on the file of theHighCourt'}

¶11

Between:

¶12

1 . The Direclor^{of schoolEducation, stateProiectDirector, sarva shiksha Abhiyan'} Hvderabad.

¶13

z ifre-oislrct^{Proiect Offrcer.Sarva Shiksha Abhryan, Hyderabad} :. r'i" oiiiiiii^{Proiect Director oi Sirvashiksha} itgp?li:Xffi3ileJgB1x!.Rlr'J1fih'

¶14

AND

¶15

T. Ramesh, S/o^{Bikshmaiah aged 41 yrs Occ:lert TeacherNon IERC Shaikpet} Nlandal Hvderabad.

¶16

2 5;i"f. bZ"jnvl^{n""i. w/o Naresh,38years, Shishu Vihar' Hvderabad'}

¶17

c. Naresh^{Kumar, s/o v"rra,"['it'vE5'l, iEii iJ"ir'"i,iEriCSaidauadtt'} Hvderabad.

¶18

ijtliriF""li'", S/o^{Mahaboob Ali, 3s} vears,^{IER Teacher,NonIERC' Charminar l'} Hvderabad.

¶19

b'li/zffi;|,^{s/o B. Saidutu, about 40 years,tERTeacher,tERC Ntusheerabadl,} Hvderabad.

¶20

iJ1"K:;;;li;rrr,^{s/o satvanaravana, 33 vears, IERTeacher'Non-IERC}

¶21

Saidabad^{l, HYderabad}

¶22

z il. s"i,;"lraiina,^{S/o Mallesham, 35 years, lERcCharminar ll' Hyderabad'}

¶23

;. 5;it';;;fi';nln,^{wior,ro sireemuioin,IER reacher' Golconda IERC'}

¶24

Golconda,^HYderabad.

¶25

g d. ViJ"ir'ft, 57" Gopal, 39 years, IER Teacher,^IERC, Qlldlaguda^{ll' Hyderabad'} -W7o snaini snLk"in"oov, 3'6 veari, IER reacher' Non-IERC

¶26

io Sri"V:p?htni TirLrmalaoiri. Hvderabad.

¶27

I r . r<. o"ilr]6io Hr"nlirri^{about 35} vears,^{IER Teacher,Non-IERC}

¶28

Himayathnagar,^HYderabad.

¶29

r z smi. F.'rlei,ima,^{Wro Ramesh 30 yearslERTeacher,ShishuVihar' Hyd}

¶30

i5.5;i. M. i;;;a,'wlo^{namattisnnalarrCo vears,IER Teacher'lERcAsifnagar l'} Hvderabad.

¶31

I a. Hvderabad.^{'l,,rlt'i.riritnrnkar,S/oMallaiah, 47 years,lER Teacher'Non-IERC}

¶32

l,4usheerabad ll, Hyderabad ....REspoNoENTSMrRtT^PET|TIoNERS

¶33

15.The State^{of Telangana'Repits Principalsecretary' EducationDepartment} Secretariat^HYderabad.

¶34

r o irre olstriCt ctltlCtor.^{Chirag Ali Lane.Abids,Hvderabad'}

¶35

't 7. Tne District Collector., Medak Medak District'

¶36

(Respondents¹ 5, 16 &^{1 7 are shown as formal parties'hence} ^o1.[".%"i3ftUJ*r,

¶37

I.A. N O:1OF^{2016(WAMP. NO:2740F 2016)}

¶38

Petltion under^{Section 151 CPCPrayingthat in thecircumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto grant} interim suspension^{of the orders passed by the leaned single iudge passedin} WP. No.16375/2015 dt^20-11'2015.

¶39

¶40

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI BHASKAR^GORLA

¶41

Counsel for Respondent Nos, 1 to^{3, 6, 8, 12 & 13:}

¶42

SRI SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI

¶43

Counsel for Respondent Nos.4,5,7,9 to 1l & 14:^{SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU}

¶44

WA NO: 101 OF 2016

¶45

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against the order dated 20.11.2015 in WP No.16093 of 2015 on the file of the High Court.

¶46

Between:

¶47

The State Project Dierctor Sarva Sikshya Abiyan, Hyderabad.

¶48

The District Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan,,^{l,4edakDistrict}

¶49

rhe District Project officer, sarva shiksha AbB,Jf&i,tY.1[?3B3or?1,K1i3i",,* *,

¶50

AND

¶51

P. lvladhusudhan Rao, S/o Venkateshwaralu , 42^yea.S R/o Zaheerabhad, Medak District

¶52

2 Smt. A. Vijaya, W/o lndra Reddy, RJo Kothur V &^IVl f.4ahaboobnagar District. Smt. Sabitha, W/o Dasaratha Rao, R/o Medak

¶53

4 Smt. Sunitha, W/o Sattaiah Fyo Gajwal V & l,4, N.4edak

¶54

5 Smt. T. Vinitha, W/o Suresh, FVo lVedak

¶55

0 Smt. S, Vanaja, R/o. Sankarampet V& M,l!4edak District. 7 G.Naresh Kumar, S/o Yellaiah, Fvo lvlusheerabad,#[1"JEl?3"rr,,oNERs

¶56

The State of Telangana Rep its Principal Secretary,, Education Department Secretariat Hyderabad

¶57

rN wp

¶58

(Respondents 8 is shown as formal parties, hence not necess_ary) poNoENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(W MP. NO: 27I OF 20'16)

¶59

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in

¶60

the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^grant interim suspension of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge^passed in Writ Petition No. 16093 of 2015 dl. 20.11.2015

¶61

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI BHASKAR GORLA

¶62

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7: SRI BATHINI PAPA RAO GOUD

¶63

WA NO: 108 OF 20'16

¶64

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 20.11.2015 in WP No. 14261 of 2015 on the file of theHighCourt.

¶65

Between:

¶66

The State Project Director, Sarva Sikshya Abiyan, Hyderabad 2. rhe District Project offlcer, sarva sikshya AblgferYr?ltssrflElfi?,r, *.,, *,

¶67

AND

¶68

Smt. Ch. Shailaja, W/o Shnakaraiah aged 45 years Unemployed R/o 1-41 kothapalli cori village regonda Mandal *"'^s"].?A?t!FbNDENT/pErroNER

¶69

rN wp

¶70

1. The State of Telangana Rep its Principal Secretary, Education Department Secretariat Hyderabad

¶71

(Respondent No. 2 is shown as rormar p""ll.HES,B,lB1,,J1%"ES."BrrJ.r,,* *"

¶72

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WAMP.^{NO: 294 OF 2016)}

¶73

Pettion under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in thecircumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, theHigh Court may be pleasdto grant} interim suspension of the orders^{passed by the tearnedsingle judge in WP.No'} 14261 ol 2015, dt. 20.11.2015,^{pendingdisposal of the abovewrit appeal in the} interest of^justice

¶74

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRI BHASKAR GORLA}

¶75

Counsel for Respondent^{No. 't: SRIBATHINI PAPA RAOGOUD}

¶76

WA NO: 110 OF²⁰¹⁶

¶77

WritAppealunderClausel5oftheLettersPatentpreferredagainsttheorderdated 2O-11-2015 in^{WP. No.36454/2014 on the file of the High Court'}

¶78

Between:

¶79

Project Director^{relansana state sarva .n'1_.13#PLll,$li.EJ93if3,$t} ro. ,,* *,

¶80

AND

¶81

E.Prabhudas,^{S/o Devasahayam aged 48 yrs IERT Palavancha Khammam} District

¶82

z. Srii' .L.vii"vrtumari,^{W/ochrnnappa aged 44 yrs IERT l andu Khammam District} s. 5ri x-^{rtrJsirn"ni. Wlo DrrgaPrasad a-ged 53yrsIERT Pinpaka Khammam} District .. .RESP.NDENT/PET.rI.NER^{lN wP}

¶83

Government Of^{Telangana, Rep its Principal Secretary Educalion Department} Secretariat^HYderabad

¶84

(Respondents 4 are shown^{as formal parties, hence notnecessary)}

¶85

EspoNDENTS

¶86

l.A O:1OF 16 WA P. NO: 2 F 2016

¶87

Petition under Section^{151 CPCprayingthatin lhe circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto grant} interim suspension^{of the orders passed by the learnedsinglejudge passed in} wP.NO.36454/2l',t 4,^{dt. 20-1 I -2015.}

¶88

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRI BHASKAR GORLA}

¶89

Counsel for^{RespondentNos.1 to 3: SRIM. VENKATA SWAMY}

¶90

WA NO: 113 OF²⁰¹⁶

¶91

Writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Letters Patent preferred againstorderdated} 2O-11-?015 in^{W.P.No.18423/2015on the file of theHighCourt'}

¶92

Between:

¶93

The State^{ProjectOfficer, Sarva Shiksha.Abhiyan TelanganaHyderabad} 2. District Projeci^{officer sarva shiksha} ^onlr.fi#liil,T.?Si.ro*o.*r., * r," *,

¶94

AND

¶95

B. Pramod, S/o^{Prakash aged 32 yrs R/o BandalgudaHyderabad} z. xa,,ri oribJ,^{wlo p"o."iuiJvAged +o yrs R/d Marecipally secunderabad} 5. r,alvliu "o^{it, wto Jagrn monai', n"ao age'+4 yrs FVo C-150PipeLane Road}

¶96

Fathenagar Santhanagar^Hyderabad

¶97

+. b.^{jvoin,Bnriqav,,wi5 veeia'rr.loninAge 40 yrs c-351AG ColonyYousugfguda} Poat Hyderabad

¶98

5 Puspha kumara, W/o lvlanoharan^{Ahe 45 yrs Rlo 541102LaxmiAparrments} venkatpuram secunderabad ....RESpoNDENTs/pETrrtoNERs

¶99

6 The State of Telangana,^{Rep its Principal secretary EducationDepartnnent} Secretariat Hyderabad

¶100

(respondent no.6 is shown^as formal^{parties, hence not n""1li?3}ooa,}

¶101

t.A. NO I OF 2016(W MP. NO: 305 O F 2016)

¶102

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumslancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleased to grant} interim suspension of^{the orders passed by the learned Single judge in} W.P.No.18423 of 2015,^{dated 20-11-2015, pending disposalof the above writ} appeal in the interest^{of justice}

¶103

Counsel for^the Appellants:^{SRI BHASKAR GORLA}

¶104

Counsel for Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 5: SRI BATHINI PAPA RAO GOUD}

¶105

WA NO: 1'l 8 0F 2016

¶106

writ Appeal under clause¹⁵ of the^{Letters Patent preferred againstthe orderdated} 20.11.2015 in WP,No.^{18682of 2015 on thefile of the High Court'}

¶107

Between:

¶108

The Director Of School^{Education, State Prolect Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan} Hvderabad

¶109

rhe District Project otficer Sarva^{Shiksha oonYil.;[tX"rlf.,f,1rroro.r.,} *,

¶110

AND

¶111

S. Triveni, W/o^{Satyanaryana aged 45 yrs Occ:ler teach et Rlo 7 -2-71125} ' Durganagar Colony bac(side^{petrol Pump Bairamalguda karmaghhghat} Sarrornaoar R.R Dist Hvd

¶112

2 The Stat; of Tetangana^{Rep rts PrincipalSecretary, Education Department'} Secretariat. Hvderabad

¶113

3 The Districi C6llector^{Chiraq AIi Lane,Abids.Hyderabad}

¶114

(Respondents 2 & 3 are formal^parties)

¶115

...RES'.NDENT'

¶116

NO:1O 1 WAMP. oF 201

¶117

Petition under Section^{'151CPC prayingthatin the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant} interim suspension of the orders^{passed by the learned Single judge in} W.P.No.18682 of 2015, daled 2O-11-2015,^{pending disposalof the abovewrit} appeal in the interest of^justice

¶118

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI^{BHASKAR GORLA}

¶119

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI SRINIVASA^{RAO BODDULURI}

¶120

The Court made the following: COMMON JUOGMENT

¶121

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶122

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶123

WRIT APPEAL Nos.98. 1O1, 108. 11O, 113 & 118 of2016

¶124

COMMON JUDGIVIENTI (Per the I lon bLe the Chi{ Justice Sattsh Chandrc Shanna)

¶125

Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they rvere heard together and are being decided by a common order.

¶126

The lacts of W.A.No,98 of 2016 are reproduced AS under:

¶127

The present W.A.No.98 of 2O16 is arising out of common order dated 20.11.2015 passed in W.P.No.18682 of 2015 and batch by the learned Single Judge.

¶128

Writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners, who are serving as Inclusive Education Resource Teachers. Their grievance u,as in respect of 2015-16 academic year. The academic 1.ear has come to an end and the benefit of the order has already been given to the writ petitioners/ respond ents in the present writ appeal.

¶129

As the acaclemic _r ear itscll is over, the present \'rit :rppeals have become infructuous and accordingly, the same stand disposed of ars infructuor.rs. However, liberty is also granted to thc l)artics to ventilate thr:ir grievance it'r case need arisc in futnre.

¶130

Miscellaneous^{Petitions' ifany'} sl-rall^standclosed

¶131

There^{sha1l be no order as to costs'}

¶132

SD/.M.VIJAYA^BHASKAR DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶133

//TRUE^COPY//

¶134

SECTION^OFFICER

¶135

To, 1. 2. one One cc CC^to to^{Sri Srinivasa} -Sri-Bhaskar^{G^orta-AdvocSliiSl#3,f" Hao uo} fopucl 3. 4. 3H 33 S St B:ln"llll;;,",',9t3"iiffi1"!j'.' -l,r' V"nxut' swamv Advocare (oPUC) Eli; Ec i;^Sii 6. Two CD^Copies 7. One SPare^CoPY MBC BS

xs/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0911212021

HE SIA 7ic
'ril
on 2 B FEB 202
<br>,-:.
4-
{
DF

¶140

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶141

WA NOS: 98, 101, 108,^{110, 113 & 118 OF 2016}

¶142

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL^AS

¶143

INFRUCTUOUS, WITHOUT COSTS

Pdtsssa v. E.Prabhudas and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pdtsssa v. E.Prabhudas and 3 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

Nidhir Mandal Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Sri. Girdharilal Swamy Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Maa Bakery Kagaznagar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Sms Lifesciences India Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Are Lachanna Vs The State of Telangana

B. Mahipal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana