Disposed

B.Srihari v. The Registrar and 2 Others

Telangana HC6 Apr 2021WP/1309/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed challenging suspension of a Junior Assistant, praying for declaration of illegality and reinstatement. Court directed respondent University to review suspension strictly under Service Rules within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directs the respondent University to review the suspension order dated 17.6.2016 in accordance with Service Rules and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

B.Srihari Vs The Registrar and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY. THE SIXTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.^{1s09 0F 2021}

¶6

Between:

¶7

B.Srihari, S/o. B.G. Mallesh,^{Aged about 36 years,JuriorA} ssistant, University College of Engineering, Kothagudem,^{Bhadradri-KothagudemDistrict}

¶8

,..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Reoistrar. Kakativa Universitv,^Warangal. 2 The Vic6 Chancellor, kakativa^{University, Warangal.} 3 The State of Telangana,^{- Represented by. its Principal} Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High court may be pleased} to issue a writ, order or direction^{morein the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring} the impugned orders No. 268tA51KU12016,^{dated 171612016issued by the Registrar,} Kakatiya University, warangal as^{being illegal,arbitrary, unjust, violativeof Articles} 14, 16, 21 and 31'1⁽²⁾ of the Constitution^{of lndia, and consequently set-asidethe} same and hold that the^{petitionerrs entitledfor reinstatementto duty as Junior} Assistant with all consequential^{and attendant benefits includingtreating the entire} period of suspension as on duty with^pay and allowances'

¶12

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶13

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of the impugned^{OrdersNo. 268/A5/KU/2016' dated} 171612016 issued by the Registrar,^{Kakatiya University, Warangaland direct the} respondents to reinduct the^petitioner to^{duty as Junior Assistant, pending disposal} of the above Writ Petition.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. BALA KISHAN^RAO

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI^{ADHI VENKATESHWARA RAO,}

¶16

S.C. FOR KAKATIYA UNIVERSITY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR^{HIGHER EDUCATION}

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶20

W.P.No.1309 OF 2021

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This *-rit petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶23

-. to issue a writ, order or direction nrotc in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declating rhc irrrpugned Otdets No, 268/ Ai/KIJ /2016, d.^ted 11/6/2016 issued bv the Regisrar, Kakatiya University, Warangal, as being itlegal, arbitrary, uniust, violative of Atticles 14, 16, 21 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and consequenrly setaside the same and hold thar the petitioner is entitled for rcinstatemerrt to duq' as Juniot Assistant with all conseqrrential and :rtrendanr bcnefits including treating the entiie period of suspension as on duty with pay and allowances and pass such other and further ordets as this Honrble Court may deem fit and propcr in the circumstances of the case.',

¶24

Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶25

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner is that he is working as Junior^{Assistant. \Whileso, the disciplinary} ^uthoiry^uide order dated 17 .6.2076 has placed him under suspension on rhe ground that he has not obeyed the official instructions of the Principal. Thereafter, no further action has been initiated against him and the respondents ha\re not taken any steps for reviewing the suspension order in zrccordance with the Rules.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petirioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to review the suspension order stfictly in accordance w'ith the Service Rules of the respondentUniversity,

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Universitv contended that the case of the petitioner would be reviewed strictly in accordance with the Rules and pass appropriate orders.

¶29

Having considered the rival subrnissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this^tJ/rit Petition can be disposed of directing the respondent-University to review the suspension order dated 17.6.2016 in accordance '*'ith the Service Rules of the University and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.

¶30

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶31

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶32

closed.

¶33

SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTANT REGIS RAR

¶34

,TRUE COPY//

¶35

SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To, 1. The Reoistrar. Kakativa University,^Warangal.

¶37

The Vic"e Chahcellor,^{kakatiyaUniversity,Warangal.}

¶38

fne^piincipil Secretary,^{FiigherEduc-ationDepartment,Stateof Telangana,} Secretariat. Hvderabad.

¶39

one CC to SriD. Bala Kishan^{Rao, Advocate} [oPucl

¶40

d: 5;; ca 6 5;iAor'i V"nti"t;r]*ii"^{nio, s.C.'for Ka(ativa Universitl(oPUC)} 6: iil Ced-to Cp for^{HigherEducation, High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. IUP -\u-

¶41

HIGH COURT

¶42

DATED:0610412021

¶43

; siA fE
k:3 Oa
lv
-l
l"-)
L1 2 B APB 2$?1
/
\ i:f

¶44

ORDER

¶45

WP.No.1309 ot 2021

¶46

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

/L<br>k

B.Srihari v. The Registrar and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Srihari v. The Registrar and 2 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

Sri.Md.Khadar Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

M.V. Bhadraiah Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

S.Shankar Vs The Director of Horticulture State of Telangana and another

E.Srinivas Vs The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare

M.Veera Reddy and 7 others Vs The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare

Dr. D. Vishnu Kumar (H.T.No. 17111003011) Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others