High Court Appellate Bench dismissed Writ Appeal No. 136 of 2018 as withdrawn with liberty to challenge potential non-regularisation order of Appellant 1, without costs.
Petitioners granted liberty to challenge potential non-regularisation order regarding Appellant 1 if not regularised.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FoR THE STATE oF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 136 oF 2018
writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order Dated 1s-12-2017 writ petition No.28148 oI 2013, on the file of the High Court.
Between:
..,Appellants/Petitioners
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 2 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to directthe respondents to continue the petitioners in service as Accountants in their respective KGBVs pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.
/
IANO:3OF 2018
Petition underSection151 CPC prayingth€t in.the circumstances stated in the affidavitfired in supportot t'r.''" p"t,t,tn, ir,e'Hiirr c-ou.t maybe pleasedto receive the materialp'p"rt and treat them as part of the I Writ additional Appealaffidavit for propercoiiiituiion u. 'tto 'iiiiionalor ir'" wiit appeal and also in the interest of justice.
Counsel forthe Appellants:SRI M'SRIKANTH
Counsel forthe RespondentNo'1: GP FORSCHOOL EDUCATION
Counselfor the Respondent Nos'2,4 to 8: SRI'G'BHASKAR
Counsel forthe RespondentNo'3: SRI N'BHUPALREDDY
The Court madethe following:ORDER
,,1
THE HON'B LE THE CHIEF TIUSTICE
AND
THE HON'B LE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SIIAVILI
W.A.No.13 6 of2O18
JUDGMENT: per the Ho,t,bte tLe ch)e1Jusnce satjsh cha dru shama)
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before this Court that relief has been granted to appellant No.2, however no relief has been granted to appellant No.1, in spite of there being an order directing the respondents in the writ petition to consider their cases for reguiarisation. He is fair enough in stating before this Court that the writ appeal be permitted to be withdrawn with a liberty to challenge the order that may be passed in respect of regularisation of appellant No.l, in case he is not regularised by the respondents.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/- M.VIJAYA BHASKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I A /" SECTION UFFICER
To, 1 Two CCs to the GP for SchoolEducation,High Court for the State of Telangana tourl
HIGH COURT
DAIED:0710112022
ORDER
WA.No.136 of 2018
E TA r^:
a
E
21 rEB 2C22 .A
f,oo
*
Dr
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS
tr,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal should be allowed or dismissed after withdrawal with liberty to challenge non-regularisation.
How the court disposed of the writ appeal when relief was granted to one appellant but not the other
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gangipalli Sampath
Sudagoni Naresh
State of Telangana
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
