Remanded

V.Shruthi v. The Superintending Engineer/Member Convenor

Telangana HC23 Dec 2021WP/9143/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed the State Government to consider representations by daughters/dependents of aged displaced persons for employment replacement under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

V.Shruthi Vs The Superintending Engineer/Member… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO, 9143 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

V.Shruthi, D/o Sudarshanreddy, aged about 28^years, Unemployee,^{Fl/o H.No.4-} 3212, Cherlabhothpur, Karimnagar mandal and^{district. (daughter)}

¶8

V.sudarshanreddi, S/o Narayanareddy, aged about^{57 years, Unemployee,Fl/o} H.No.4-3212,Cherlabhothpur, [(arimnagar mandal and district.^{(AwardNo.6/80-8'1} dt.31-12-1980 and 7lB3-84 dt.27.02.1984)(lncluded at^SI.No.68 in^File No 8l/376/87 dt 28 03 1990)

¶9

...pETrroNERS

¶10

AND

¶11

The Superintending Engineer/Member Convenor, G.V.Circle-lV,^(SRSPOrgn), L.M.D.Colony, Karimnagar Dist.

¶12

2, The AdminiStrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Selection^{Committee,S.R.S. Project,} LMD Colony, Karimnagar.

¶13

J. The Distri-ct Collectbr-cum-Chairman, Selection^{Committee,Karimnagar,} Karimnagar Dist.

¶14

The StaTe of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary,^{I and CADDept} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue a Writ or Order, more^particularly Writ of^{Mandamus declare that 1st} petitioner is entitled for providing employment to any suitable^post viz. Junior Assistant/Office Subordinateffiork lnspectors/Technical^{Assts/Lascar etc., in existing} vacancies or arising vacancies in G.O.Ms.No.45^{d1.28.12.2020 in termsof} G.O.Ms.No.98 dt.15.04.1986 by substituting^{petitioner's name} at^{Sl.No.68in 2nd} petitioner's place in File No.B11376187 d1.28.03.1990 as was done to similarly^placed persons vide Memo.No.7560/LA/R&R/A212017 d1.04.07.2019 by holding the action of the respondents in not^providing employment to the 2nd^petitioner though empanneled in the 695 candidates list prepared during the year 1990- 1994 while preparing only 393 candidates list on 25-03-2008 though he is fully eligible and qualified at the time inclusion in the list while including similarly placed persons by replacing in the name of father or husband as per above stated memo dt.04.07.2019 is clearly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and contrary to the^judgments in

¶17

0.A.No..8208/2003^a rd^{batch dt'06.5.2004,o.A. No,7917i2012,16.07-2007,} W.P.No,2346/20,1 1^{dt 08.02.201.1Apex Court judgmentin S.L,P'No.1430512011} dl.O4-07^{-2011 etc., th. t application not madewithin one year'}

¶18

lA NO:¹ oF 2021

¶19

Petition under^{I ;ection 151 CPC prayingthat in the circllmstances stated in} the affidavit filed in^{upport of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto} consider the case^{01 the 1st petitioner name for inclusion at sl.No.68in File} No.B1/376/87 dt.28-0:^{-1990 in the place of 2nd petitioner as was done vide Memo.} No. 7560/LA/R&R/A2l^{20'.l 7 dt.04.07.2019 prior to making any appointmentsunder} displaced^{persons quc la by giving due priority to the 1st petitioner for appointmentto} the^post of^Juni< r^{Assistant/officeSubordinate/worklnspector/Techn icaI} AssistanuLascars etc.^{in the existing vacancies in terms of G.o.Ms.No.9B dt.15-04-} 1986^pending disposa^{of the W.P.,}

¶20

Counsel for the Petiti^{,ners:SRI M. RAMGOPAL RAO}

¶21

Counsel for the Resp 'ndents:^{GP FOR SERVICES' ll}

¶22

The Court made the f, llowing:^ORDER

¶23

TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI \ RIl' PF,TITI N No.9l 13 of 2021

¶24

ORDEIT:

¶25

This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

¶26

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶27

"...to issue a writ or order, more particularly Writ of Mandamus declare that 1't petitioner is entitled for providing employment to any suitable post viz., Junior Assistant/Office Subordinate/Work Inspectors/ Technical Assts/Lascar etc., in existing vacancies or arising vacancies in G.O.Ms.No.45 dt.28.12.2020 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dt.15.04.1986 by substituting l " petitioner's name at Sl.No.8l in 2nd petitioner's place in File No.Bl/376187 dt.28.03.1990 as was done to sirnilarly placed persons vide Memo No.7560,{-AlR&NA2l20l7 dt.04.07.2019 by holding the action ol the respondents in not providing employment to the 2nd petitioner though empanelled in 695 candidates list prepared during the year 1990-1994 while preparing only 393 candidates list on 25.03.2008 though he is fully eligible and qualified at the time ol inclusion in the list while including similarly placed persons by leplacing in the name of father or husband as per above stated memo dr.04.0'7.2019 is clearly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and contrary to the judgments in O.S.No.8208/2003 and batch dt.06.05.2004, O.A.No.791712012, dt.16.7.2007, W.P.No.2346l2011 d1.08.02.20 I I Apex Court^judgment in S.L.P.No. 14305/201 1 dr,04.07.201I etc., that application not made within one year and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.^just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶28

Heard Sri M. Rarn Gopal Rao, counsel for the petitioners, and

¶29

¶30

AKS.J v,' P No 91.11 2021

¶31

the Govemmer t Pleader for Services-il appearing fbr the respondents.

¶32

4, It has b,en contended by the petitioners rhat the lands oltheir family memb( rs were acquired by the respondents tbr irrigation Projects and tl at the State Government has ral<en a p,rlicy decision virle G.O.Ms.I o,98 dated 15.04.1986, wherein the State Government has decided to provide employment to the displaced persor.rs or their dependents.

¶33

Counsel lor the petitioners contended that the name of the 2"'1 petitioner was ncluded in the list of eligible candidates lor ploviding employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04. 1986 and the 2"d petitioner is no re other than the thther of the l't petitioner. Counsel fufther contend:d that since the 2nd petitioner has beconre or.er aged, the 1't petitione has submitted an application seeking employment in terms of G.O.M:.No.98 dated 15.04.1986. Counsel further contended that when some beneficiaries, who have become over aged, subrnitted representations .o the State Government to provide err.ployment to their sons/daugh ters, the State Government was pleased to issue memo dated 04.07.20 9 permitting to replace the over aged displaced persons with th( ir younger family members, and that the case of the petitioners stand; on same footing. Counsel further submittecl that the petitioners subm tted detailed representations to the 4th respondent on 28.01.2013 and 18.12,2021 requesting the 4'h respondent to consider the case of the 1^I petitioner as replacement to the 2nd petitioner in the list of beneficiar es and also to consider the case of the -'' petitioner

¶34

¶35

AKS,J W.P No.9l4l 2021

¶36

for providing employment in any suitable post in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, but so far the 4th respondent has nor passed any orders on the said representations.

¶37

Therefore, counsel for the petitioners contended that appropriate orders be passed in this writ petition directing the 4th respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners on 28.01.2013 and 18.12.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶38

Govemment Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that since the representations submitted by the petitioners are pending with the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶39

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by leamed counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 41h respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners on 28.01.2013 and 18.12.2021 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a reasonable period of time, preferably within eight (8) weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order.

¶40

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of, No order as to costs.

¶41

Pending miscellaneous petitions, ifany, shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @

¶43

//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To, 1. The Superintending Engineer/Member^{Convenor, G.V.Circle-lV, (SRSPOrgn)'} L.M.D.Colony, Karimnagar^Dist. 2. The Adminidtrator-cumlChief^{Engineer, Selection Committee,S.R.S. Project,} LMD Colony, Karimnagar.

¶45

The OistriLi Collecior-cum-Chairman,^{SelectionCommittee,Karimnagar,} Karimnagar Dist.

¶46

---

¶47

4t The Princip I Secretary, I & CAD Dept., State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad, 6. One CC to S i M. Ramo opal Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CCs tc Gp for 5ervices - ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. I )UT1 8. Two CD Cop es.^' 9. One Spare C tpy. MP BS .

HIGH COURT

DATED:23112'2021

ORDER

WP.No.9143 ct 2021

---frf.
q
o:)
0 7 JAN 2022
a=
*
t n
\ L'\ q Dr-..1C!<br>

¶54

DISPOSING O: THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO{ iTS

¶55

A
f

V.Shruthi v. The Superintending Engineer/Member Convenor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Shruthi v. The Superintending Engineer/Member Convenor

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

Jadhav Vasram Vs The District Collector and Chair Person Special Dsc 2011

Bandapalli Madhu Vs The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 2 others

Dr. M.L.S. Ramakanta Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M Ramesh Vs The District Collector,(Sw)

K. Subadra Kumari Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Gujjala Lavanya Vs The Superintending Engineer/Member Convenor