Disposed

K.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, v. The District Collector (Tw)

Telangana HC19 Apr 2021WP/4575/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged seniority list and sought promotion without departmental tests. Both parties consented to disposal at supplementary stage. Court directed respondent to consider pending appeal and pass orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 3rd respondent to consider the pending appeal preferred by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

K.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Vs The District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

wRtT PETTT|ON NO. 4s75 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

K.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Sio. Laxma Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-ll, Govt. ST Boys Hostel, Narsapur, Narsapur l\4andal, IVledak District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Ihe^{District Collector (TW), Medak Distrlct at Sangareddy} 2. The District Tribal Welfare Officer, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. J. The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, State of Telangana, Hyderabad 4. The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal- Secreiary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

.,,RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned prodgs.Rc.No. DrDolAl2}3t2o21, dated 4-2-2021 issued by the District rribal Development officer, Sangareddy District, in pushing down the seniority of the petitioner by applying Rule 16 (h) of the state and Subordinate service Rules is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of lndia besides being opposed to the dictum of law and consequently set-aside the same and hold that the petitioner is entifled for fixation of his seniority in the category of Hoster werfare officer Grade-l as per his merit and ranking obtained in the serection process without reference to passing of departmental tests with al consequentiar benefits including promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-l on that basis.

¶13

lA NO:'l OF 2021

¶14

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High coun may be preased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Hoster werfare officer Grade-r without reference to passing of departmentar tests within the period of probation by dury taking rnto consideration of ranking assigned by the Public Service Commission, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI D. BALA KISHAN RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES _ |

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.4575 ot 2421

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This writ petiiion is being disposed of ol the odmission stoge with the consent of both porties

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking lhe following relief^:

¶23

"....to issue a Writ, order or direction^{moreparticutartyone} in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the^impugned Prodgs.Rc.No.DTDOlAl2S3/7071 , dated 4.2.2021^issuedby the District Tribal Devetopment Officer,^Sangareddy District, in^pushing down the seniority of the^petitionerby apptying Rute 16 (h) of the State and Subordinate^Service Rutes is ittegat, arbitrary, unjust,^{viotative of Articles14,} 16 and 21 of the Constitution of^{lndiabesides being} opposed to the dictum of^{lawand consequentty set aside} the same and hotd that the^{petitioner is entittedfor} fixation of his seniority in the^{categoryof Hostel Welfare} Officer Grade-ll as^{per his merit and rankingobtained in} the setection^{processwithout reference to passingof} departmental tests^{with att consequentiatbenefits} inctuding^{promotion to the post of Hostel Wetfare Officer} Grade-1..... ".

¶24

Heord Sri D.Bolokishon^{Roo,leorned counseloppeoring for}

¶25

the petitioner ond^{the leorned Government Pleoder oppeoringfor} the respondenls.

¶26

lt hos been contended^{by the petitioner ihot he is working os} Hoslel Welfore^{Officer Grode-ll ond the respondentshove prepored} seniorily^list on^{04.02'202.l, which is controry to the low loid down by} the Hon'ble Supreme^{Court. Aggrieved by the some' he hos} preferred on oppeol before^{lhe 3rd respondent on 13 02'2021But'} so for, ihe 3'o^{respondent hos not possed ony orders in the soid} oppeol.

¶27

Therefore, leqrned^{counsel oppeoring for the petitioner hod} contended thol^{opproprioteorders be possedin ihe writ peiition} directing the 3'o^{respondenl lo considerihe oppeol preferredby} the^petiiioner ond^{poss opproprioteorders in occordoncewilh low'}

¶28

Leorned Government^{Pleoder oppeoring for the respondenls} hod coniended thot since the oppeol^{prefened by the petilioneris} pending with the 3d respondent, the 3'd respondeni would consider lhe some ond oppropriote orders would be^possed in occordonce wiih low.

¶29

This Courl, hoving considered the rivol submissions of leorned counsel for the porties, is of the considered view ihot this wril petilion con be disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the oppeol prefened by the peiilioner ond poss oppropriole orders in occordonce with low, within o reosonoble period, preferobly within o period of eighl weeks from the dote of receipt of o copy of this order.

¶30

With the obove directions, the wril petiiion is disposed of. No order os to costs.

¶31

Pending miscelloneous pelitions, if ony, sholl stond closed.

¶32

To,

¶33

SD/- I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGESTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶34

1 2 ? .f1,":,"s":Hi#liiiI#s:l3;rfi,s,:",iird."Tiil:::T'T'1""ns"n",, 4. Two CD Copies. IVP .P-

HIGH COURT

AKS,J

DATED:1910412021

ORDER

WP.No.4575^o12021

S'1'Ai€
2st1 C
stuut
()//
*

¶41

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶42

.', \ b

K.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, v. The District Collector (Tw)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, v. The District Collector (Tw)

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

R. Ramakrishna Vs The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration and 3 Others

Jodu Lingaiah, Vs Sri N. Sridhar and 3 others

Gopu Pochaiah, Vs Sri N. Sridhar and 3 others

Kinnera Laxman Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Ranajit Mahapatra Vs The Chief Manager, And 2 Others

Raj Kumar Pasi Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited and 2 Others