Dismissed

V. Vijayalakshmi v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC20 Apr 2021WP/5143/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an administrative transfer order removing a Principal from an autonomous college. The Court examined whether the transfer was punitive or based on unsatisfactory performance. Dismissing the petition, the Court held the transfer was valid per the committee report.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed without costs, and the impugned transfer order was allowed.

V. Vijayalakshmi Vs The State of Telangana and Another — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR IHE ST N GA NA ;;" ", j Lxiii{i{lfl :::;A

¶2

", j Lxiii{i{lfl :::;A ,,i7JI,H?Iffi.}Ii5'#,H,Y98fi

E*''

PRESENT

Between:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRI TPETITION NO: 5143 o F2021

¶7

i;,$#_;jr*m_f; :T,,lA,|j"i,f [r,r,;Bf,??i;t?,,n"".",s".ry

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

'I . The State of Telanoana Bgp. OV its Special Chief Secretary for Higher Education. Governirent of r"lrigr"r,"5cEnl'liriii,ngr, Basheerbash, Hyderabad.

¶11

of collegiate Education, Government retangana, Nampaly,

¶12

' I?*:ffi]ssioner

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High couri may Le pieaseo to call for the records pertaining to the impugned transfer order dated lsioztzozl issuea to G by o.Ms.No.42, dated _the 2nd respondeni 04/0612001, ,19- _r-"! it punitive. aside bad, stigmatii illegal, and without unfair, arbitrary reason "*tr"ry and basis, violative of principles of natural justice and unionstitutional and consequenfly oireci the respondents to continue.the petitioner as principal of the Government city bollege (A),^Nayapool Hyderabad till she completes 5 years tenure under Golr,,ts.No.+2, dated 0410612001 by issuance of Writ of [,4andamus.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the impugned transfer order dated 191021202i issued by the 2nd respondent and continue the petitioner as Principal, Government City Coliege (A), Nayapool, Hyderabad pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶17

Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. SUDHEER

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE^{SRT JUSTICEABIIINAND KUMAR SIIAVILI} W.P.No.5143^{of 2021}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Writ^{Petitionis hlecl seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling} for^{the records pertainingtothe impugnedtransferorder} dt.lg-02_2'2lissued^{by the 2nd respondentand set it aside as it is} bad,^{iilegal, unfair' arbitrary' contrary toG'O'Ms'No'42} dt.04-06-2001^{and violativeof principles of naturaijustice and} sor:ght^{consequentialdirectionto the respondentsto continue the} petitioner^{as Principal of the Govemment City College (A)'} Nayapool,^{Hyderabadtill she completes5 years tenure under the said} G.O

¶23

Heard^{Sri J Sudheer' learncd counsel for the petitioner} and the^{learned GovemmentPleaderfor Services-I'appearingfor the} respondents.

¶24

It^{has been contendedby the petitionerthat she is} working^{as a Principal at GovernmentCity College'Hyderabad' The} petitioner is^{one of the senior most Principalsand the State} Government^{has taken a policy vide C'O'Ms'No'42 dt'04-06-2001'} wherein^{the State Government has conferred autonomous status to} certain^{Government degreecolleges and fi'amed elaborate guidelines} for selecting^{and posting the Principalsin the abovesaid autonomous} colleges.^{Eariier thereto' the petitioner was transferredto} cor..ilit Degree^{College'Parkalthough shewas entitled to be}

¶25

',^f']\o'.) /4.J o|;|

¶26

considered for a transfer" to the autonomous colleges. When her case was not considered, she has filed W.p.No.2 3109 of 20l8befbre rftis Couft and this courl was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition vide orders dt.Zg-06-2019 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for posting her in one of the autonomous institutions referred to in G.O.Ms.No.42 dt.04_06_2001 and in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered and she was posted to Government City College (Autonomous), Nayapool, Hyderabad vide proceedings dt.18-01-2020 and since then, sl.re has been discharging her duties to the best satisfaction of her superiors and everyone concerned.

¶27

Petitioner further contends that while she was working as a Principal in the Government City College, Nayapool, Hyderabad, the respondents have passed the impugned transfer orders dt.l9-02-2001 and transferred the petitioner from Govemment City College (A), Nayapool, Hydelabad to Govemment Degree College, Mahabubabad. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶28

The petitioner had contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.42 dt.04-06-2021, elaborate procedure has been prescribed for selecting Principals to be posted in autonomous college and^the Selection Committee has recommended the case of^{the petitioner for being} posted as a Principal in the Government City^College (Alutonomous), Nayapool, Hyderabad and the^{petitioner,after being}

¶29

*.l

¶30

AKS'J W.P.No^{5l43of 2021}

¶31

¶32

cleared^{the selectionin accordancewith the procedureprescribed} But the . ^nd^l, and^{was posted ln one of the autonomouscolleges} respondent^{has passedthe impugned orderson 19-02'2021 alleging} that the^{performance of the petitionerwas not satisfactoryas} envisaged^{by the UGC and based upon non-satisfactory performance} of the^{petitioner, she was transfenedfrom Government City College} (A), Nayapool^{to Government Degree College' Mahabubabad'}

¶33

Learned^{counsellor the petitionerhad futhercontended} that the^{performanceof the petitioner ought to have beengone into} by the Selection^{Committeeas statedby the G'O'MsNo'42'but the} 2nd respondent^{cannot allegethat the petitioner's performance is not} satisfactory^{and on that ground, the respondents cannottransferthe} petitioner and therefore^{the transfer order is punitivein nature as} thereisnoallegationofmis-conductandthepetitionerisbeing transferred on the^{ground that the perfotmance of the petitioneris not} satisfactory. Therefore,^{the impugned transfer ordersare liable to be} set aside and a direction^{may be given to the respondents to continue} the petitioner at Govemment^{CityCollege,Nayapool, Hyderabad'}

¶34

Learned Government^{Pleaderfbr Services-I,appearing} for the respondents,^{had filed a memoon 08-03-2021wherein the} minutes of the meeting^{oltheCornmittee was produced and the said} Committee con-rprising^{Regional joint Director, Joint Directorand} Academic Guidance^{Officer has not onlyexamined the performance} of the pqljtigner, but^{also examined the perforrnanceof various other}

¶35

w-r.iru,J r.rJ O, ltjr-

¶36

individuals who are rvorking in the autonomous colleges and submitted its repoft saying that the performance of t.e petitioner is not satisfactory and accordingly, the petitioner was ftanslbred frora the Government City College, Nayapool to the Government Degree College, Mahaboobabad and no illegality has been committed by the respondents in transferring the petitioner to Govemment Degree College at Mahaboobabad. The perfomance of the petitioner was purely assessed by the inclependent committee and after evaluating the performance of tl.re petitioner for the 1ast one year only, the Cornmittee has come to the conclusion that the performance of the petitioner is not satisfactory and accordingly, the petitioner was repatriated to non-autonomous college due to her poor performancc and negligence in perfbrming her duties. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed

¶37

Having regard to the rival submissions made by the parties, this Courl is of the considered view that the petitioner's performance was evaluated by tl-re Committee and the Committee has gone into the performance of the petitioner and after examining her performance only, the impugned orders were passed and the Committee has corne to the conclusion that her performance is not satisfactory and accordingly she rvas given posting as a Principal in another Governrrent Degree College. Hence, the contention of tl-re petitioner that her transfer is punitive in nature may not be con'ect. Therefore, the respondents have rightly transferred the petitioner

¶38

AKS.I W.P.No.5l43^{of 2021}

¶39

from^{the Govemment city colrege (Autonomouscollege),Nayapooi} to the^{GovernmentDegree College'Mahaboobabad' based on the} Committee's^{report which says that the performanceof the petitioner} is not satisfactory,^{when the Comrnittee had come to a conclusion} that the^{performance of the petitioner is not satisfactory' then Court} should not interfere^{as the futureof the students career wouldbe at} stake.TheminutesoftheCommittee'srepoftwasalsofurnishedby the Government^{Pleaderto the counselfor the petitioner'}

¶40

L) Hence, I do not^{flnd any met'it in the Writ Petition and} the same is accordingly^{dismissed. No costs.}

¶41

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions pending, if any,}

¶42

.:!_lll^{stand closed.}

¶43

THIKEYAN SD/.R.KAR GIST^AR ASSISTANT^R //TRUE^COPY// FFTCER SECTION

¶44

\ "' l, ?'lB ss Jiis d rii$!i;i;til?'!3li 33lnu^{3i *} " state^{or reI a n g a n a} '' ,i'ivoeranad louTl

¶45

Two-CD^CoPies ,*{

HIGH COURT

DATED:201O412O21

ORDER

WP.No.S143 of 2021

iA ra'
r.)
,j ,27 APB 2021 C)
*
Oi i' :, -l- C

¶51

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

V. Vijayalakshmi v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Vijayalakshmi v. The State of Telangana and Another

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

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

Kinnera Laxman Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Ranajit Mahapatra Vs The Chief Manager, And 2 Others

Allam Vinod Kumar Vs M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Major Shiva Kiran Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation Vs The Union of India and 2 Others