Disposed

K.Madhu v. the State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC20 Dec 2021WP/800/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Visually handicapped Kamatee employees challenged termination over allegedly bogus nativity certificates. The court allowed four petitions, set aside the termination orders and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, permitting fresh lawful action. A connected recruitment petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the pending representation.

What did the court decide?

Termination orders set aside; reinstatement with all consequential benefits directed. Authorities directed to consider the recruitment representation within a reasonable period.

K.Madhu Vs the State of Telangana and 2 others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IUONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETI TION NO: 45857 OF 2 18.8251 0F 2020. 86 I OF 2020. 88s6 0F 2020 & 800 0F 2021

¶6

WP NO:45 57 0F 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammad Abdul Sami, S/o Abdul Waheed Age.24 years, Occ. Unemployee Fl/o. H.No. 9-2-8611, Jama trlasjid Tirmalagiri, Monavikai Nagar, SecunderiOa'0.

¶9

Mohammad lmran, S/o lbrahim, Age. 23 years, Occ. Unemployee Fl/o. H.No. 10-45, Maqdoompally Village Zaheerabad, Medak District.

¶10

Fatima..B"gg[, D/o_Shaik Mehboob Ali Age. 28 years, Occ. Unemployee Rl/o. H.No. 16-5-475, Farhat Nagar, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶11

Khaza Ferozuddin, S/o Khaza Moinuddin, Age. 20 years, Occ, Unemployee R/o. H.No. 1 7 -4-368, Nagarchigalli, Yakutpura, Charmiriar, Hyderabad.

¶12

...WRIT PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal 9ecretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Bldgs, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Selection Committee, Hyderabad rep by its Chairman Cum District Collector, Hyderabad.

¶16

The District Collector, Hyderabad District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 oI 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 a writ of Mandamus - declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in filling the vacancies by the non-local candidates and ignoring the candidates of local category as per GO No 104 dated 24-3-2O0O in pursuance of Notification No 70/2017 as illegal, arbitrary violative of Article 14,16,19 and 21 o'l the Constitution of lndia and also principles of natural^justice and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the candidature of the Petitioners for appointment under Notification No. 70/2017.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶20

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 direct the respondent No. 2 to consjder the representation of the Petitioners dt. 4-7-2018 Ior filling up the posts under Notification No. 70/2017 with local candidates

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. KRISHNA C M

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

WP NO: 8251OF 2020

¶24

Between:

¶25

D.Narsaiah S/o.Venkat Ratnam, Aged about 40^years, F/o.6-428/A, MNR Colony, Me )rpet, Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad-79.

¶26

...PETITIONER

¶27

AND

¶28

1 . The State c 'Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue^Department, Secretariat 3uildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶29

The Districi Collector, Hyderabad District, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶30

The Comm ssioner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶31

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition u tder Article 226 of the Constitution of lrdia^praying that in the circumstances st; ted in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be pleased} to issue Writ, Orc 3r or Direction more^particularly in the natlre cf^{Writof Mandamus} declaring the a tion of Respondents more^{particularl)/ RespondentNo,3 in} terminating the employment of Petitioner vide Orcer dated^05.06.2020, bearingNo.4916, C(A)/GA/OP2lGHMCI2020-l/288 acting flursJant to^Proceedings of Respondent N r.2 dated 29.05.2020^{vide Proc No.A/SRD/GHMC|70|2017-28the} copy of which wi s never served to Petitioner till date^{and without conducting any} hearing as arbitri ry, unjust, unreasonable, illegal and^{violativeof Article 14 and 21} of Constitution o lndia and consequently Set-a-side^{Order dated05.06.2020 of} Respondent No.3 and Proceedings dated 29.05.2020 of^{Respondent No.2 while re-} instating the Petit oner into employment, I

¶33

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶34

Petition un ler Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filec in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedto} SUSPEND the lmpugned Termination Order dated^{05.06.2020, bearing} No.4916/AC(AyG/OP2lGHMCl2020-11288^passed by^{llespondentNo.3 and} Proceedings c ' Respondent No.2 dated 29.)5.2.020 vide^Proc No.A/SRD/GHMC'7012017-28^{while re-instatingthe Peti'ion{?r into employment} pending disposal rf present Writ Petition.

¶35

lA NO: 3 OF 2020

¶36

Between:

¶37

The State c'Telangana,^{Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department'} Secretariat 3uildings, Saifabad,^Hyderabad

¶38

The District Collector,^{Hyderabad District, Abids,Hyderabad}

¶39

3, The Comm ssioner,^{GHMC,Tank Bund,Hyderabad}

¶40

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶41

AND

¶42

D.Narsaiah S/o.Venkat^{Ratnam, Aged about 40 years, F/o'6-428lA'IMNR} Colony, Me )rpet,^{Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad'}

¶43

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶44

Petition un ier Section^{151 CPC praying thatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{n support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to vacate} the interim order^{lated 1610O12020in l.A No of 2020 in W.P. No 8251 of 2O2O}

¶45

lA NO: 4 OF 2020

¶46

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in l!.e^:?lgayit^{filed in support of the petition, ine HtgnCourt may} be^pteased to DIRECT the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner/petitioner into employment pursuant to lnterim orders dated 16to6l2ozo in the above writ petition with W.P.No.8251 ot 2020.

¶47

IANO:1OF2 021

¶48

Between:

¶49

Mohammad Abdul Sami S/o. Abdul Waheed, aged 27 years, Occ: Unemolovee ^ Ri./o. H.No. 9-2-86t1, Jamajid, rirumatagiri, [1";-ouik;;'G;;i,"#ffi;;"b;i:" 2. Mohammad tmran S/o. rorlnim, gsed 2t y";[;o;;-, U6ffii"t;Ry;.'H.N;: ^^{10.15,Maqdoompaly village, Zah-eeraOad,fr,leOaX Oistri"t.'} J. Fatima.Begum, S/o. Shaik Mehaboob Ali, aged 31 years, Occ: Unemployee . Y.o.^{t-t.No. 16-5-415, Farhat Nagar, Crrarmiiii} nvderaOaO

¶50

Knaza Ferozuddin, S/o. Klhaza Moinuddin, age^d 20 years, Occ: Unemployee R:/o. H.No. 1Z-4-368, Nagarchigaili, Vafutpuia] Chaiminar,'HyderabaO..^-,--

¶51

,..PETITIONERS/PROPOSED RESPONDENTS NOS. 4 TO 7

¶52

AND

¶53

D.Narsaiah, S/o.Venkat Ratnam, Aged about 40 years, R/o.6_42814, MNR Colony, Meerpet, Saroornagar Mandai HyOeralaO.

¶54

.,...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶55

The State of Tetanoana, lgn UV its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, S ecreta riat B u i td i n g"s, S a,ra f,a o ] rivd "r"^{6JJ;' "}

¶56

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶57

The Commissioner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶58

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶59

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the .affidavit fired in support of the petitio;, ihe High court miy o" pr"r.Lo t" lmplead the Proposed Respondents No 4 to 7 as Respondents Nos. + io-i-in tne above Writ Petition.

¶60

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. SUJITH JAISWAL

¶61

Counsel forthe Respondents: cp FOR REVENUE

¶62

counsel for the proposed Respondents: sRl. KRTSHNA CHAKRAVARTHY M

¶63

W NO: 8659 F 2020

¶64

Between:

¶65

B.Parvathalu, S/o B.Bheemaiah, Aged about 28 years, Ri/o.H.N o.16_2- 743/Cl B/F, [Vloosarambagh, Hyderabad'

¶66

.,,PETITIONER

¶67

AND

¶68

1 The State of Telanoana. Rep by.its principal Secretary, Revenue Oepartment, Secretariat Buitdings. Saifatjad, HyaeranJO.^"'I'"'v'

¶69

2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Abids, Hyderabad

¶70

The Commiss ioner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶71

...RESPONDENTS

¶72

Petition und:r Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances state lin the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to lssUE writ, order ,r Direction more particularly in the nature of wrii of Mandamus declaring the actir n of Respondents more particularly Respondent No.3 in terminating the em )loyment of Petitioner vide order dated 05.06.2020, bearing No.4916/AC(A)/GA/( )P2lGHMcl2020-1't1289 acting pursuanr to proceedings oi Respondent No.2 d: ted 29.05.2020 vide Proc No.A/sRD/GHM cltolzotl-28 the copy of which was never ;erved to Petitioner till date and without c,lnducting any hearing as arbitrary, unjust unreasonable, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 2i of constitution of lnd a and consequenfly set-a-side order dated 05.06.2020 of Respondent No.3 e rd Proceedings dated 29.05.2020 of Respondent No.2 while re-instating the Petitr )ner into employment.

¶73

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶74

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to SUSPEND the lr rpugned Termination Order dated^(15.06.2020, bearing No.4916/AC(A)/GA/c P2|GHMC|2020-111289 passed by Respondent No.3 and Proceed ings of Respondent No.2 dated 29.05.2020 vide proc No.tuSRD/GHMC/70 2017-28 while re-instating the Petitioner into employment pending disposal of 6 .esent Writ Petition.

¶75

fA NO: 3 OF 2020

¶76

Between:

¶77

The Slate of Te langana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Bui iings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶78

The District Co ector, Hyderabad District, Abids, Hyderabact

¶79

The Commissir ner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶80

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶81

AND

¶82

B.Parvathalu, I /o B.Bheemaiah, Aged about 28 years, R/o.H.No.16-2- 743lCl B/F, Moosaram ragh, Hyderabad

¶83

...RESPOI!DE NT/PETITIONER

¶84

Petition under lection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in st pport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orderdate, 0310712020 in l.A No of 2O2O in W.P No 8659 of 2020

¶85

lA NO: 4 OF 2020

¶86

Petition under I ection 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo t of the^petition, the High Court may be^plerased to DIRECT the Respondent Nos.2 ; rd 3 to reinstate the Petitioner/Petitioner into employment pursuant to lnterim Orders dated 0310712020 in the above Writ Petition with W.P.No.8659 ol 2020^passed by this Hon'ble Court^pending disposal of^present Writ Petition.

lA NO: 1 oF 2021

Between:

Mohammad Abdul Sami S/o. Abdul Vlahee!, aged 2T years, Occ: Unemployee

¶91

^^{R7o. H.No.9-2-86t1, Jamajid, Tirumalagiri,Man"ovikasllrsii, Sdr"deru-UuO.} 2. ^^{10-15, Maqdoompaily} Mohammad rmran S/o.^viltage, rbrahim, ?sed^{Zaheerabad, l,Iedak District.} 2-6 years, occ: unliipioye"-ruo. i.No.'

¶92

Fatima Begum, S/o. S].aik IMehaboob Ali, aged 31 years, Occ: Unemployee R/o. H.No. 16-5-475, Farhat Nagar. Cfrarmiiai, HyderabaO

¶93

a \az.l Ferozuddin, S/o. KlhaziA/oinuddin, aged 20 years, Occ: Unemplovee R/o. H.No. 17-4-368, Nagarchigali. yat<utpural Crriir6inir,'nfirr;;;'.'"'-,'

¶94

...PETITIONERS/PROPOSED RESPONDENTS NOS. 4 TO 7

¶95

AND

¶96

B.Parvathalu, S/o B.Bheemaiah, Aged about 28 years, Fl,ro.H.N o.16-2_ 743tCl B/F, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad'

¶97

.....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶98

The state of reranoana, Bgp uy its principar secretary, Revenue Department, Secrerariat Buitdin{s, S;ifada; ; Hv,jeiJ5io.^{- -'}

¶99

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Abids, Hyderabad

¶100

The Commissioner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶101

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶102

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support_of the petition, tne Hign court may be pleased to lmplead the Proposed Respondent Nos 4 to 7 as Respondents Nos q to i in the above writ Petition.

¶103

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl, SUJITH JAISWAL

¶104

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶105

Counsel forthe proposed Respondents: SRl. KRISHNA CHAKRAVARTHY M

¶106

WP NO: 8856 oF 2020

¶107

Between:

¶108

Kumari shabana Begum, D/o.Abdur Raheem, Aged about 26 years, Fl/o.16-1 1- 51 I lcl4'1, Moosarambagh, Saidbad, Hyderabad.

¶109

.,.PETITIONER

¶110

AND

¶111

The state of reranoana, Bgp by.its principar secretary, Revenue Department, secretariat Buitding-s, s;ifa-d;a: Fitdei;#d.'^--'

¶112

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶113

The Commissioner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶114

,..RESPONDENTS

¶115

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the. High court may 6e pieaseo to issue writ, order or Direction more particurarry in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents more particurarry Respondent rrro.s in i?rmilalins^{the emprovmentof petitioner vide orderaaiea} os)oorioib, t""ring No.4916/4C(A)lcAlop2lcHMCt2o2o-l|t29o acting pursuant to proceedings of

¶116

¶117

Respondent No.2 , ated 2gto5t2o2o vide proc No.A/SRD/GHr Act7or2o17-28the copy of which was nev€ ' served to petitionei iiri o"i" "^a- *ithout conducting any hearing as arbitrary, uniu t, unreasonabre iilegar "nJ uiJrtiue of Arricre 14 and 21 0f constitution of lr iia and conseque.t]v s"t., ru" order dated 05106/202o of Respondent No.3 rnd proceedings d"t"6 zsiditio2b of Respondent No.2 whire reinstating the Petitio rer into employment

¶118

IANO:'l O F 2020

¶119

Petition undt r section. 15r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited I suooort of the pet;tio;, in" iigl, Court may be pteased to DTSPENSE wrth th( ritino of proc^eeJi.br "in".p"ndent^{No.2 dated2910512020vide} [:1;]:#:,Tlrcrt'ttcriorzotT-28^as"the ';;;;;. not served to petitioner by

¶120

NO: 2 0F 2020

¶121

Petition unde section 151 .cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn L?^llgli,^{fited ir supportof the petiiio;,} i-he ;igh Courr may be pteased To susPEND the r nouoned rermination^'o-ro"r' ort"o 0510612020, bearing No.4916/AC(A)/GA/,pZ|CHrr C.tZOZo-.-'t1'tjZO-O"lasseo by Respondent No.3 Proceedings of Respondent r.ro.z aatJJ 29h5t2020 vide proc No'AisRD/GHMCtT(t2017'-.2.8. *r,ir" i"i"ltrti,;'"t;" petitioner into emproyment pending disposal. of I resent Writ petition.

¶122

NO OF 20

¶123

Between:

¶124

The State of Tt lanoana .!qO Oy its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Bui Jing's, siitrf"oi rivo"ir6j'0.'^"""'""

¶125

The District Co ector, Hyderabad District, Abids, Hyderabact.

¶126

The Commissic rer, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶127

... PETITIONERS,'RESPONDENTS

¶128

AND

¶129

Kumari.Shabar r Begum, D-/o.Abdul Raheem, Aged about 26 ,iears, Rl/o.16_115111C141. Moos rrambagh, Saidbad, nvO"iiUJO.'""^"'

¶130

...RESPONDE NT/PETITIONER

¶131

Petition under r ,ection 1s1 cpc praying that in the circr:mstances stated in the affidavit fired in su )port of the petition, tne iign court may be ,re;sed t;';acate the interim order datec 1910612020 in rA No of zoio in w.p. No8BS6 * 2o2o

¶132

lA NO: 4 OF 2020

¶133

Petition under s )ction 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo t of the petition, thd Hign court may be p eased to Direct the Respondent Nos 2 a rd 3 to reinstate the petitioner/petitione,r inio empioyrent pursuant to lnterim on er dated i9l06l2o2o in the above wrlt petition with w.ir. No 8856 of 2020 passed b r this Hon'ble Court pending disposal of present Writ petition

¶134

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶135

Between:

¶136

Mohammad Abdr I Sami S/o- Abdur Vlahee!, aged 27 years, r)cc. Unemproyee ^^{R7o.H.No.g-2-8( t1 , Jama.iid,Tirumalagiri,tvlan"ovikas i,Jagar,Secundurr'n-r6.} 2. Mohammad lmra r S/o. lbrahim aged 2-6 years, Occ: Un""mpiuye.iruo. f-f .f.lo. 10-45, Maqdoom rally village, Zaheerabad,IVedak Drstrict.^''

¶137

¶138

Fatima.Begum, S/o. Straik Mehaboob Ali, aged 31 years, Occ: Unemplovee v',e' "},'vrsr

¶139

R/o. H.No. 1 6-5-47s, Farhat Nasai,-Ch;il;; irv6"r2nlj-"

¶140

4' Khaza Ferozuddin. S/o. xhaza"vt6inuJoili, ilbo 20 vears, occ: unemprovee Fr/o. H. No. 1 7-4_36 8, r.t a s a rchis j l i, ia [rl;; A Crrar; inl i' Hiii" ri,o u-j., " -,

¶141

¶142

AND

¶143

...PETITIONERS/PROPOSED RESPONDENTS NOS. 4 TO 7

¶144

Kumari Shabana Begum, D/o.Abdul Raheem, Aged about 26 years, Rl/o..161^j -51 1 I Ct 41, IVoosa6mbagh, Si,anrJlHVierabad.

¶145

.,.RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶146

The State of Telangana, .!ep by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buitding's, Sairariao I rivjela6Jo.'

¶147

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶148

The Commissioner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶149

....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶150

Petition under section, 1,51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, tn6 iig;'6or.t may be preased to rmpread $"",,,?i1."o Respondents No. 4 io z ur'nu.poii"its ruos. i io i,, ir* ji,ir.l w,it

¶151

Counsel for the petitioner:M/S. SUJITH JAISWAL

¶152

Counset for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES lllcp FOR REVENUE

¶153

Counsel for the proposed Respondents: SRll KRTSHNA CHAKRAVARTHY M

¶154

WRIT P E TITIO N NO: 800 0F 2021

¶155

Between:

¶156

K.Madhu, S/o.Venkat Ratnam, Aged about 40 years, Rto.6_428lA,Ir,4NR Colony, Meerpet, Saroornagar lr/andat, ttio"rroJj_zsl^{,varJ'| r</sup>}

¶157

AND

¶158

..,PETITIONER

¶159

The State of Telanoana .fgn Oy its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buitdin{s, si,rati"ol livoeiroJo]' ""'' ""

¶160

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶161

The Commissioner, GHIVC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶162

...RESPONDENTS

¶163

petition under Articre -226 0t the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit fited th;;;;d;'ihe nign Court may be pteased to tssue Writ, order or Direction ilr; p;;;;i;r",, in" nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action or nesponoJni;;;:i 'pu'rti.uturty Respondent No.3 in J,a'",510", a,i"o it.i.ioib,'f'"u,ing [iiS.,",,[%,Iil":iHFJ["J[#irUl!Sl"; Respondent'No i ai"i'iartrzo:z,i,ii" p,"l]ll;y^,.ffi.,[1]il of which was never served to p;titi";;; i,ri ori""#i *ithout.conducting "Eo,liii?f]t,H:d,jany hearing as arbitrary, uniust. unreasonabte, iilegat ;l liJtrtiru of Articte tq aid zt ot constitution of India "nd "on"equ""iiv slil, iil'" oro",. dated 14/12t202O of Respondent No 3 and proceedings d iti'a iaiiitioi0 of Respondent No.2 whire re_ instating the petitioner into employment

¶164

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶165

Petition under^{iection151 cPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in supp^,rt of^{the petition,the High court maybe pleased to dispense} with the filing of Pr^{rceedingsof RespondentNo.2 dated 28.11.2020 videProc} No.A/SRD/GHM ClTOl^{:,-017-12 as the same was not served1o Petitioner by} Respondent No.2.

¶166

IA NO 2 0F 2021

¶167

Petition under^{iection151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in suppc^{t of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto suspend the} lmpugned^Teirr nation^{Order dated} 14'1tl 2O2O ' bearing tto.+S'tOlnC(eyGA/O '2IGHMCI2O2O-298^{passed by Respondent No.3 in terminating} the employment of^{F etitioneracting pursuant to Proceedingsof RespondentNo.2} iit"a^{'zi.tt.zozovide proc No.A/SRD/GHMCI70I2017-1.2and direct the} Respondents to^{reins ate the Petitioner into employment pending disposal of present} Writ Petition.

¶168

lA NO: 3 oF 2021

¶169

Between:

¶170

The State of Te angana,^{Rep by its Principal Secretary, RevenueDepartment,} Secretariat Buil lings, Saifabad,^Hyderabad.

¶171

The District Col ector,^{Hyderabad District' Abids,Hyderabac'}

¶172

The Commissic^{rer, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad'}

¶173

' ...PETtTtoNHRSTRESPoNDENTs

¶174

AND

¶175

K.Madhu,S/o.\enkatRatnam,Agedabout40years,R/o6-42ti/A'MNRColony' N/eerpet, Saroc^{'nagar Mandal, Hyderabad-79'}

¶176

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶177

Petition under^{iection151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavitfiledinsupptrtofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybeF,leasedtoVacatethe interim orders daled:^{)_3l03l2oztin tR.ruo.ilzoztin wP.No.800i20i:1and to dismiss} the Writ Petition

¶178

Counsel for^{the Petitoner: M/S. SUJTTHJAISWAL}

¶179

Counsel for^{the ResJondents:GPFOR SERVICESlyGP FOR REVENUE}

¶180

The Court^{madethe ollowing:}

¶181

(

¶182

¶183

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W,P.Nos.4 5857 of 20r 8. 8251 of20 20, 8659 of 2020. 8856 of2020 & 800 of 2 021

¶184

COMMON ORDER:

¶185

AII these Writ^petitions are being disposed of by way of common order as the issue raised in all these Writ petitions, except W.P.No.4857 of 2018, is one and rhe same. The issue in W,P.No.4857 of 2018 is slightly different but pertaining to the very sall]e I SSUe.

¶186

Heard Sri Krishna C.M., leamed counsel for the petitjoner in W.p.No.45g57 of ZOiA, 'Srl Sujith Jaiswal, leamed counsel for the petitioners in W.p.Nos.g25 l, g659 and gg56 of 2020 and 800 of 2021 and the learned Government pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents in all the Writ petitions.

¶187

For the sake of convenience, W.p.Nos.g2-5 1, g659 and 8856 of 2020 and 800 of 2021 are being dealt with first and that the facts in W.P.No.825l of 2020 are hereunder discussed for conventence.

¶188

W.P.Nos.8251.8659 and 885(r of2020 and 800 of202l:

¶189

It has been contended by the petitioner that the petitioners in all these four cases are visually handicapped persons and they are basically hailing from Hyderabad District and in order to pursue tJleg educational needs, the petitioners have moved on to

¶190

¶191

tl.re neighbourir g districts^{viz., Mahabubnagarand Nalgorrdaand} after getting ne( essary^{qualificationsthey have returned back to their} parents who ar ) permanent residents of^{HyderabadDistrict.The} petitioners have futher contended that^{the respondents had issued a} limited recruit,nent notification during^{August 2017inviting} applications fo, the post of^{Kamateeand the petitionershave} responded to t te said notification^{and after undergoingregular} process of selt ctions, they have been^{selected for the post of} Kamatee by th^, 2nd respondent-District^{Collector. Hyderabadand} later in-tum al ctted the^{petitioners to the 3'd lespond ent-Greater} Hyderabad Mu ricipal Corporation,^{Hyderabadvide proceedings} dt.29-08-2018. In pursuance to^{the saidproceedings.petitioners} have^joined dut' :s as Kamatee^{and dischargedtheircluties to the best} satist'action ol tl eir superiors and everyone^concerned.

¶192

It 'Las been further contended^{that one Sri Mohd. Abdul} Sami had made rllegations^{vide letter dt.24-09-2018 allegingthat the} petitioners have produced bogus^{parentsnativity certificateand he} filed one of the ilrit^{Petition of this batch i.e. W.P.No.45857 of 2018} along with oth, rs^{challenging the appointment of the petitioners'} The petitioners tave^{contended that entertaining the allegationsmade} by Abdul Sami, the^{DistrictCollectorhad issueda showcause notice} on 05-12-2019^{ts to why the appointment ordersgiven in favour ol} the petitioners^s rould^{not be cancelled on the allegedgrornd thatthe}

¶193

(

¶194

w.p,Nos,csssr orz0t r &t:lc;

¶195

¶196

petitioners have produced bogus certificates at the time of their apporntment.

¶197

The petitioners have submitted detailed explanation to the said show cause notice on 06_12_2020 denying the charge and they have also brought to the notice of the 2,d respondent i.e. G.O.Ms.No.i04 dt.24_03_2000 in respect of visually handicapped and hearing handicapped persons who have studied in the speciar schools and in such cases, the nativity of the parents has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the local status of a candidate. But the 2nd respondent has, not considered any of the contentions raised by the petitioners and had passed orders canceiling the apporntment of the petitioners vide proceedings dt.29-05-2020 and the said proceedings were not even communicated to the petitioners and the 3.d respondent in_turn had passed impugned ten-nination orders dt.05_0 6_2020. Challenging the same, these Writ petitions are filed.

¶198

Learned counser for the petitioners has contended that the termination orders are stigmatic in nature and it has been alleged that the petitioners have produced bogus certificates at the time of their appolntment and whenever such allegation is rrade, the respondents ought to have conducted enquiry and also ouglt to have made reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to defend their case and after fo.llowing due procedure, they should have passed a reasoned order. But in the instant case, the 2nd respondent has issued

¶199

\ P.\os.l-ill57 ol 20l8 & brrcr

¶200

show cause no.ice and petitioners have submitted explanation to the said show cau,,e notice. The 2nd respondent instead o1. passing the orders, the 3'd respondent passed the termination orders. The 3'd respondent ha i not even applied his mind and he has only implemented tire orders of 2nd respondent by stating that the 2nd respondent har instructed him to terminate the serv ices of the petitioners and accordingly he has passed the impugned tennination orders. Leam:d counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of th, Supreme Court reported in Kamal Navan Mishra v. State of M: dhya Pradesh and othersr wherein the Supreme Court held as ur der:

¶201

"The termination of the appellant fi'jlhout ot1 ittquirt or hearingwas llegal and invalid. In the normal course, we u,oukl have set asit e the lermination and directed reinstatement v,ith consequentia benefits, reserving liberty to the employer to initiate discil linary proceedings. But the peculiar facts of this case require us to adopt a slightly different approach to do complete^just ce between the parties. "

¶202

Lea ned counsel for the petitioners has further

¶203

contended that z perusal of the^judgment rendered by the Srrpreme Court makes it rbundantly clear that whenever any allegations^are levelled against rny employee, a reasonable opporlunity should^be given to the em )loyee to prove his innocence. Btrt in the instant case, no opportr nity or no enquiry was conducted to as.ellain the truth whether pr titioners have really submitted the bogus nativity certificate of tt eir parents and the respondents have also^not I 12olo12 Supreme cor l Cases 169

¶204

¶205

AKS.J W.P.Nos.{585? ol 20l8 & batch

¶206

¶207

considered G.O.Ms.No.l04 dt.Z4-03-2000 which comes to the rescue of the petitioners. Therefore, impugned termination orders are liable to be set aside as they have been passed without conducting any enquiry or without giving any opportunity to the petitioners.

¶208

Leamed Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents has contended that the 2nd respondent has issued show cause notice on 05- r 2-20 r9 and the petitioners have submitted an explanatiorr on 06-01-2020. An opportunity was given to the petitioners to put forth their cases and after not being satisfied with the explanation of the petitioners, thl respondents have rightly imposed punishment of termination on account of petitioner.s producing bogus nativity certificates. Therefore, there are no merits and the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶209

Having regard to the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned termination orders passed by the 3d respondent on 05_06_2020 are not passed independently by the 3d respondent and they were passed at the instance of 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent,s order dt'29-05-2020 was also not communicated to the petitioners and the services of the petitioners were terminated on the alleged ground that they have produced bogus nativity certificates and the said allegation is ofser(lus in nature which affects the careers of the petitioners and whenever serious allegations are levelled, the respondents ought to

¶210

\ P.\os.l5S:7 ol :01E & batch

¶211

have conducted r detailed^{enquiry so as to enable the petitioners to} prove their innoc :nce in the said enquiry. Admittedly,^{in the instant} case, such enquir^y was not conducted^{and no opportunity was given} to prove their inr )cence.

¶212

<br>

¶213

I l. Ther :fore, by following the law^{laid dor'r'nby the} Supreme Court ir Kamal^{Nayan Mishra(supra l), the impugned} orders oftenninelion^{passed by the 3'd respondentvide ploceedings} dt.05-06-2020 ar tiable^{to be set aside and accordinglythey are set} aside. The respc rdents^{are directed to reinstatethe petitionersrvith} all consequentia benefits.^{However liberty is given to the} respondents to fcllow the due^{process of law. It is needlessto say} that it is left opt n to the^{respondentsto injtiate appropriateaction} against the petitic ners in accordance^withlaw.

¶214

W.P.No.45857 of2i^18:

¶215

In re;pect of W.P.No.45857^{of 2018is concerned.it is a} case of the petiti )ners that^{the petitionersherein have allegedthat} some irregular ap tointments^{havetaken place to the post ol Kamatee} in GHMC and th'petitioners^{have submittedtheir represerltations to} enquire into the i;sue^{about bogus nativitycertitlcatesand acting on} the representatior s of^{the petitioners, the respondenlshave initiated} action and termir^{,atedthe servicesof petitioners in W'P Nos'825I,} 8659 and 8856 o1 2020^{and 800 of202l.}

¶216

!a-i&----

¶217

¶218

KS.J W.P.Nos.45857 of20l8 & barch

¶219

I I

¶220

)

¶221

As far as this case is concemed, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there are still vacancies of Kamatee in the 3'd respondent-Corporation. petitioners herein have submitted representations to consider their cases for the post of Kamatee on 16-01-2021 but so far respondents have not passed any orders on the said representation. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that appropriate orders be passed on the representations of the petitioners directing the respondents to consider their representations dt. 16-09-2021 and also consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Kamatee in any of the existing vacancies. t

¶222

Leamed Govemment^pleader lor Revenue appearing for the respondents has contended that since petitioners' representations are pending with the respondents, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a reasonable period of time.

¶223

Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners made on 16-09-2021 within a reasonable period of tirne.

¶224

¶225

W.P.Nos.45857 of^2018& batch

¶226

¶227

Wi .h the aforementioned^{directions,W'l)'Nos'8251,}

¶228

8659 and 885 5 of^{2020 and 800 of 2021 are} a lou ed and

¶229

W.P.No.45857^{rf 2018 is disposedof. No costs}

¶230

As a sequel, the^{miscellaneouspetitionsperrding,if any,}

¶231

shall stand clos^:d.

¶232

SD/.N.CHANDRA^{SEKHAR RAO} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

(-lL1

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal S :cretary'^{Revenue Department' State of Telangana' Secretariat} Bldgs, Saifabat ,^Hyderabad'

¶239

The chairman^{)um oistiJibottector,District Setection conrmittee,Hyderabad}

¶240

The District^{Co ector, Hyderabad District'}

¶241

i. fn" Corrissk^{ner, GHMC, TankBund' Hyd-erabad}

¶242

S. One CC^{to Sri. (rishnaC M AdvocatetOPUC.l}

¶243

o. s Cc.^{to M/s.I ujit Jaiswal, Advocate[oPUc].}

¶244

Two CCs to^{G , tor neve]rue,fftgn Court tor ihe State of Telangana.i99n_-}

¶245

Two CCs^{to G} '^{tor serr]cesit,'tiighcourt tbr the State of Telangana. [oUT]}

¶246

Two CD^Copie;

)r.

I :

HIGH COURT

DAIED:2011212021

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.45857 ol 2011 ,8251 , 8659, 8856 of 2020, & 800 of 2021

¶255

.r'.4:=:r
-/a
c
1?. tluttlt?-

¶256

Allowing the Vl'P.Nos. 8251,8659 & 8856 of 2020 & 800 of2021 Disposing of tlre WP.No. 45857 of 2018

¶257

Without costs.

¶258

.t
l:
(_,.

¶259

K.Madhu v. the State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Madhu v. the State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamidi Mallaiah Vs The Union of India and 8 others

Ramala Pullaiah Vs The Union of India

Nimmala Parvathi and 28 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Sri Muralidhar Shrouthi and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

K.Upendar Rao Vs The Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project

D.Narsaiah Vs the State of Telangana