Disposed

Smt.N.Geethanjali v. The District Collector

Telangana HC12 Apr 2022WP/18120/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this ad-interim disposal arising from a miscellaneous petition, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's appeal regarding re-allotment to Siddipet district under the spouse category and to pass appropriate orders by a specified date given pending disposal of related writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; respondents directed to consider petitioner's appeal and pass appropriate order by 05.01.2022.

Smt.N.Geethanjali Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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

Betwee n:

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18120 QF 2022

¶7

Smt.N.Geethanjali, W/o. I,4.Srishylam, aged about 42 years, panchavat Secretary Gr.lV Arequdem Grama Panchayat. yeldurthy N/andal, N/ed'ak Districr. (iD No i555965).

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

The District Collector, (Panchayat Wing) Sangareddy district. 2. The District Coltector, (panchayat Win!) SidOIpet dtdtrict. 3. The District Cotiector, (Panchayat Wln!) tvleddk Oistrict. 4. The Commissroner for Panchayat Raj ihO Rural Developmenf cum-Chairman, Allocation Committee, Govt. of T.S. Hyderabad.

¶11

The SFte of Telangana, rep., by its Piincipal Secretary, panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

...REspoNDENTs

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constjtution of lndia praying that in the cjrcumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or orders more in the nature of Writ of [,4andamus declaring the impugned Proc. PR/PR/lVE/tVEDA/PASE/OO8g dt.21-j2-2021 issued by the 1st respondent allotting to L4edak district contrary to petitioners option exercised to Siddipet district under spouse category as per Guideline 23 proviso of G.O.Ms.No.3'1 7 dt.06.12.2021 and notimplementing Govt.l,4emo. No.1 655iS PD-l/2 021-8 dt.24.12.2021 with regard to ailotment of spouse category candidates which is a zonal post despite availabillty of vacancies in Siddipet district while implementing and allotting spouse category candidates in other districts as per the above memo above is clearly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust and set aside the same and consequenfly declare that the petitioner is entitled to be reallotted to Siddipet district under spouse category as per option with all consequential benefits

¶14

ecrat un rnat Junsdlction )

lA NO:^'l OF 2022

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 respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner for re-alloting to Siddipet dist under spouse category by disposing of the appeal di. 23-12-2021 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. UGENDER REDDY

¶21

Counsel for Respondents: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ &

¶22

RURAL DEVELOPMENT/AGP FOR SERVICE.I

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSENREDDY}

¶25

WRI T PETITION No.18120 of2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Hearcl Mr. P.Ugcndcr^{Reddl', learncd coullsellor thc pel-itioner,} ancl Ie:rrnr:d l\ssistiltlt^{Covernlllenl PlctLclt r lor Scrvrccs-1,:rnd pcrused} thi' rn:rtcriai on rr-cot-cl.

¶28

). I-.iirt-iccl coLttlsi'l i.rl- btlrir^{sicir's I'('l)ol-t [hal irlsimil:tr} i:jl.r:timslitt.tc(s. Lhis Coril t^{p:.tsstd ol'(l(':'s irl \V.i'No.36688 ol 2O-2Iarlcl} ltirtch drttc.cl 28.12.2021 iLncl. in^{tenllstlr('r.('o1'. this$ nt pelltioll :rlar' llc} ( lrsl)' s('(l ,)l'.

¶29

'l'hcreiitre. rct ordirlg Lllc afo:'t's:rirl 'sub:llissiol't of the Icarnt:cl cour'rscl on^('ither sicle.^{jirllou'irlgrhcor(1( riI'r W.P.No 36bU8al 2O21} .1n(l bzrtch^(1.1te.,1 28.^{12.2O2-1, irlrcfrns thercof, this \,rir pctition is} clisltoscd ol <lir-ecting l)tC^{IiCs;tOnd(.1lts1o consid0rthC pelititlncr's} appcal d:.rtt--ci 25.¹ 2.20i^1urnci 1;lLss^{;rI)I)1opriilte ordersthere<;n' itl} aiCr-.orclance^$ ill-r la'.^{\'ithir.. :r pr':rioci ol lrlr-rr (-1) $'etl<sfrrl tt-i the clate tll} I-r'r'ci1:t^<-r1- iL copr t',l this^{r:lrl(.l'l'llt- olclt'r' jrl \r'lrNo'3fi588 of 2O21 alld} b:rtcir (ial.r(l -1S.1-2.l0l I^{sllall ij'rnr pal'l of thct-ccol'cl'TIlc} niis<:ellarrcous iipltlirraliolls.^{il arlr'. sharllslllncl closcci No ctlsts'}

¶30

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI ASS|srAN#lEGlsrRAR //rRUE COPY' SECTIbN OFFICER 1 The District Coltector. (Panchayat Winq) Sanqareddv dislricl. 2 The District Collecror, (panchaiat Wrn!; SrdOipel drdtrict. 3 lne Urstnct Collector, (Panchayat Wing) N,4edak district. 4 The Commissroner for Pancha.iat^R?j 5hd Rural Development_cum_Chairman, Ailocalion Committee, Govt. of-T.S. Hyderabad. 5 I!p_!1,ryp:,^{Secretary,panchayatRbj and RurarDevetopment Dept., State of} I eranqana Secretariat. Hvderabad. 6 One CC to Sri P Ugendei Reddv Advocate IOPUCI 7 Two ccs to GP For Panchayat'Raj & Rurai Deveropment, High court for the state of Telangana. [OUTI 8o Two CD CopiesTwo CCs to GP service-I, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 1 0 One Spare Copy BC

To,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 12104t2022

ORDER

WP.No.18120 of 2022

l
13 l.P't 20?2 i'ii
t!.,
: t,.

¶37

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶38

WITHOUT COSTS

¶39

tl
i3

¶40

r ToNoURABLE SRI Jr.rSTrcE ABTIINAND KLtMAR SFIAVII-I

¶41

W.P.Nos.36688.36726, 36791. 368:16J6858. 36860, 36883. 36908. 36922.36932.3693.J{955.J6965J6527 f 2021

¶42

CQ}IIIQN OttDER:

¶43

Sincc thc issuc involved in all thesc writ petitions is one and the same, they are being heard togcther and disposed of by way of this common order.

¶44

Hcard lcarned counsel appearing for thc petitioners and Learncd Govemment Pteader for Scn,iccs-I appearing for thc respondents.

¶45

TIrc pctitioners in all thcse s,rit petitions are rvorking as Sccondarv Grade Teachers/ Langrrage panclits/ School Assistants/Hcad Masrcrs. Their grievancc.is that $,hile alltitting the I)isricts in tcrms of the presidential orcler, rhe rcspondents have not propcrlv considcrcd their cases.

¶46

Lcamed counsel appearing for thc pctitioners contencled that G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2027, makes it very clear rlrat the allotment has to be made to the newly cropped up districts basecl upon the seniority and certain preferences rvere also given to the rJ7idorvs/Medical exigencies / Schedule Tribc candidatcs ctc. Lcarncd counsel frrrtlrer contendcd that when thc respondents have not considcred tlrc cases of the petitioncrs as per tlreir senioriry or prefcrcntial cirtcgories as mcntioned in thc grridclincs yicla G.O.Ms.No.317, datcd 06.72.2021, thc pcritioncrs lrave strbrnittcd representations/ appcals to the respondcnts, but so far, no otders havc

¶47

been passed lhercon. I-eamed counsel further contended that apptopriate orders be passed in all these rvrit petitions directing the rcspondcnts to consider thc rcpresentations/ appeals prefcmed by the petitioncrs lnd pass appropriate ordcrs, in accordancc rvith la$'.

¶48

Leamed Govcrnrrent Pleader appearing for the respondents contendcd that sincc thc representations /appeals prcfcrred l>v thc petitioners are pending ryith the rcspondrnts, the rcspondcnts rvould consider the sarne and puss appropriate otdcrs rvithin a reasonablc pcriod.

¶49

I Iaving considercd thc rival submissions maclc bv thc lcarned counsel on either sidc, this Court is of thc vierv thtt all thr rvrit petitions can bc disposcd of directing the tcspondents to considcr the represcntrtions /appeals preferred by the pctitioners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance rvith larr', on or before 05.01.2022.

¶50

Accordingly, all the Writ Pctitions are disposed of. No costs. Pending 1\liscetlaneorrs Pctitiorrs, if anv, shall also st.rnd closc(|.

¶51

Jrisrrcrj^{ABHINANDKt NIAltSIIAYII-I}

¶52

Dirc:1s.12.2{)21

Smt.N.Geethanjali v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.N.Geethanjali v. The District Collector

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

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

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