Disposed

K.Pradeep Kumar Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC12 Apr 2022WP/18101/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the transfer of a school assistant to a district without medical facilities. The High Court followed a batch order and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's appeal regarding transfer under specific guidelines within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's appeal regarding transfer under specific guidelines within four weeks.

K.Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B, VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1810't OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

K Pradeep Kumar Reddy, S/o. Anjil Reddy, Aged 38 years, Workino as School Assistant, (physitat Scienc6), Z.p.ti.S.,"komrri,-Vfrld,i,.-'triliOri Narayanpet District.

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

The State,of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary to Government, School,tducation Department, Telangana State Secretariat. BRKS Bhavan, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Director of School Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Educational officer, Mahabuinagar, N/lir,douunigJi District.

¶13

RESPONOENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praylng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that

¶15

a) The action of the respondents in ailotting the petitioner to Narayantpet District by proceedings no. ES/sC/MA/NARA/SCAS/0744 dated 2311212021 is illegal and arbitrary viorating article 14 and 16 of the constitution of lndia.

¶16

b) Declare that, action of the respondents in not considering the appear and representation filed by the petitioner dated 2411212021 and 1210112022 by treating the case of the petitioner under special category in terms of the G.o.lMs. No.317 daled 061121202 1 is illegal and arbitrary.

¶17

c) Declare that the respondents shall considered the case of the petitioner in terms of guidelines issued in G.o.Ms.No.317 dated o6t12lzo21 and shall allot the petitioner to Mahabubnagar District.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section^'1 51 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to

¶20

direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by treating him under speciar category in terms of G.o.Ms.No.317 dated 0611212021 and re_arot the petitioner to Mahabubnagar District, pending disposat of the writ petition and pass

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU

¶22

Counsel for Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES_I

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{.'USTICE B.VIJAYSENREDDY}

¶25

WRIT PETITIO^{N No.181O1 of 2022}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao^{Madiraju, learned counsel for the} petitioner, and learned Assistant^{Government Pleaderfor services-I,} and perused the^{material on record.}

¶28

Learned counsel for both^{sides report that insimilar} circumstances,^{this court passed orders in w.P. No.36688 of 2o2land} batch dated 28.12.2021^{and, in terms thereof, this writ petitionmay be} disposed of.

¶29

Thereiore, recording the^{aforesaid submission of the learned} counscl on cither^side ,^{lollowingthe order in W P' No 36688 ol 2021} andbatchdated23.12.2o2l,inlermsthereof,thiswritpetitionis disposecl ol directing^{Lhe Ilcspondents to considerthe petitioner's} appealdated24.|2.2o2lbytakingintoconsiderationGuidelineNo.22 of Appendix to^{G.O Ms.No.317General Administration (SPF-I)} Department dated 6.12.2021^i.e. "Emplogees^{ha vlng nentallg} retarded children to^{aplace where medicaltacilitlesare} available' and^{pass appropriate orders within a periodof four weeks} from the date of^{receipt ol a copy of this order' The order in W P'} No.36688 of 2O2l^{and batchdated 28'12'2021shall form part of the} record. The^{miscellaneousapplications, if any' shal1stand closed' No}

¶30

COSIS A .4, Sd/. B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,TRUE^COPY// .i, SECTION^OFFICER

¶31

To, 1 The Princioal Secretary^{to Government'SchoolEducation-DeoartmentState of} +l]iru;yi;H.;i","J,siit"^{-slii"iiii.l.Eirxs Bhavan, Lower rankBund Road,} Hvderabad. 2. iilE'oitlii"t of School^{Education,Telangana State'Hyderabad'} 3. 4. +t:"tll* trlw'11*l^{d'altmm;,H3i;3"3Pf:,?l'n'!i!ro u'r} One CC to^{Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiralu Aovocalel\Jruvl}

¶32

6 Two CD^Copies /'^^ c^^.^ a^^,

¶33

HIGH COURT

¶34

DATED: 1210412022

¶35

1 HE- li a4 l4: o-
o
L) ll i,ii frQ
*
, "(: .1PA-i

¶36

ORDER

¶37

WP.No.18101 of 2022

¶38

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶39

WITHOUT COSTS

K.Pradeep Kumar Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Pradeep Kumar Reddy 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

Shaib Hussain Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sudershan Lokhande Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Thudumdebba Aadivasi Seva Samithi Vs Sri Somesh Kumar, IAS and 5 others

Sandhyarani Kondapaka Vs The State of Telangana

Mamatha Srivari Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Smt.N.Geethanjali Vs The District Collector