Dismissed

Persika Srinivas v. State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC11 Feb 2021WP(PIL)/47/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notification for class VI admission to Social Welfare Gurukul Schools. The Judge ruled that the present petition raises the same issue as a pending PIL (W.P.(PIL) No. 43 of 2020), and therefore closed the current plea.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed along with applications, with liberty to the counsel to assist in W.P.(PIL) No. 43 of 2020.

Persika Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Another — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE SI (s o";; i 3l:,Pi 1513ary3,*i Ar HYD ERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE E

¶3

rw o i H o u Sht [T,JS i,f I_"f".S,?R u A Ry

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEI ,, u ro,u,, * r-;;$l"rJ ::JI:^TIJffiX

¶6

WP(P tL) No. 470F 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

RiJ:'itr?5!l",li;"31,?, k?,ih,l;i3l,,iifl?J8l3: Ased about 41 years,

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

3:?'?iJ.lr?]iry#,: oTE I^{o' P rr n ci pa I s ecreta ry, s ocia I werra re Depa} rtm e n t, Telangana Social welfare Residential Educational lnstitutions Societv. 1 0 - 4't 7 1 t 2e 4, owa i si p u ra. va ii o'ia ni . H ;ffiil1i"il:;i'.lv iiJ5l"Jlutr rv.

¶12

3 3il{,.33rJ:'"r'^{V-rGCEr2o2o,10-4-771l2e4, owaisi pura, Masabrank,}

¶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 court ,lv "oe pGaseo to rssue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of l/aryary: 9y^{declaring the notification for admission to v crass i.e.,} v rccET 2020 for social welfare Gurukul Schools issued by the 2nd respondent as illegEl,-illogicat and beyond jurisdiction of the respondents and consequenfly direct the r-espondents to rssue a fresh notification by rectifying the mistakes committed in the notification under challenge.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to keep the notification in abeyance.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. HARINATH

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE/

¶19

ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2&3: SRI N. BHUPAL REDDY,

¶21

STANDING COUNSEL FOR TSWREIS.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

ECH lEF^{JUSTTCEHIMAKO FILI} THEH^{ON' BLETH}

¶25

AND SRT JUS^{TICEB.VIJAY SENREDDY} THE HON^,BLE

¶26

TPETITIO^{N GIL.No,41 of2020}

¶27

@er^{the Ilon'blethe ChiefJusticeHimaKohli)} @,

¶28

The^{present petitionraises the same issue as raisedin} W.P.(PL).No^{.43 of 2020 wherein, counter affidavithas alreadybeen} fi1ed by the^{contestingrespondentNo'2'}

¶29

Therefore, the^{presentpetition is closed along with the pending} applications, if^{any, with libertygranted to learned counselfor the} petitioner to assist the^{court in W.P(PIL)'No'43 of 2020'I-earned}

¶30

counsel for the^{petitionerin the captionetlpublic interest litigation} shall fumish a complete^{set of the paper bookto learnedcounsel lor} the petitioner herein for^{his perusal.}

¶31

SD/-I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGIS R

¶32

¶33

/iTRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICE R

¶34

To,

¶35

Sri. T. Sujan Kumar,^{Advocate, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad}

¶36

One CC to Sri. N. Harinath,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶37

One C.C. to Sri. N.Bhupal^{Reddy,StandingCounselforTSWRElS.(OPUC)}

¶38

Two CCs to GP for Social^{Welfare,High Courtfor the State of Telangana'[OUT]}

¶39

Two CCs to the Addl Advocate^{General, High courtfor the stateof Telangana.} [our]

¶40

Two C.D. Copies

¶41

Prk \ j"*

HIGH COURT

DAIED^1110212021

ORDER

WP(PIL).No.47^{of 2020}

¶46

1 BE ST4 14:
(
t
I
ooq5 r24 tEB 2021 Z
-fij
i-;

¶47

Closing the WP.(PlL)

¶48

')-<br>[? *

Persika Srinivas v. State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Persika Srinivas v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Telangana Auto Hire Purchase Association Vs Commissioner of Police

Md. Hasham Shariff Vs Sri M. Srinivas

Shaik Inthiyaz Ahmed Vs the State of Ts

G Rmamana and 128 Others, Vs Prl.Secy., Finance Dept., Hyd., and 2 Others

Sk Confectionery and General Stores Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Veerbhadra Agencies Vs The State of Telangana