Disposed

Minhaj Nazima v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC18 Apr 2022WP/18635/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the arbitrary allotment of a petitioner to the Medak District Local Cadre, the High Court dismissed the petition by following a similar order in WP No. 36688 of 2021 and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's pending appeals within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's appeals dated 24/12/2021 and 09/03/2022 and representation dated 30/03/2022 within eight weeks.

Minhaj Nazima Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

IVONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B,VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18635 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Minhaj Nazima, W/o Abdul Sami, Age. 35 years, Occ ; School Assistant, Address H.No. 2-82, Street Shaikwada, Kohir Village and [Vlandal, Sangareddy District.

¶9

.,.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director of School Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Educational Officer, Sangareddy District.

¶14

The District Educational Officer, Medak District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the allotment of the Petitioner to the Medak District Local Cadre by the Respondents vide orders bearing Proc. No. ES/SC/ME/MEDA/SCAS/0643 dt. 23/1212021 and Proc. No. ES/SC/MEDA/SCAS/0046 dt. 0610112022 as being illegal, arbitrary. u ncon stitutiona l, in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to set aside the same and direct the Respondents to allot the Petitioner to a school in the Sangareddy District Local Cadre and pass.

¶17

|.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition Under Section 15'1 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 appeal daled 2411212021, appeal dated 0910212022 and representation dt. 3010312022 filed by the Petitioner seeking change of cadre to Sangareddy District Local cadre and pass appropriate orders forthwith and communrcate the same to the Petitioner and pass.

¶19

ounsel for the Petitioner : SRI.SRIRAM POLALI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR SERVICES - I

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE^{HON'BI,ESRI JUSTICE B' VIJAYSENREDDY} WRI'f Pl,'l'^{ITION No. 1tt635of 2022}

¶24

OIIDEIt.:

¶25

l'learcl^{Iearnedcounsel tbr the petitioner and learned} Assistant^{Government Pleader for Services-Iand perusedthe} material^{on record'}

¶26

Learned^{counselfor both sides report that in the similar} circumstances,^{this Court passed ordersin W'P'No'36688of 2021} and batch^{dated2S'12'2021and' in termsthereof' this writ petition} maY^{be disPosedof'}

¶27

Therefore,^{recording the aforesaid submission of the leamed} counsel^{on either side' following the order in W'P'No'36688of} 2021^{and batch dated 28'12'2021' in termsthereof'this writ} petition^{is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the} petitioner's^{appealsdated24'12'2021 and Og'02'2022 and} representation^{dated 30'03'2022and pass appropriateorders} thereon,^{in accordance with iaw' withina periodof eight (8) weeks}

¶28

fromthedateofreceiptofacopyofthisorder.Nocosts

¶29

Pending^{miscellaneousPetltlons'if any, shall stand closed'}

¶30

SD/.K.SA^ILESHI ASSISTANT^REGIST

¶31

//TRUE^COPY//

¶32

SECTION^OFFICER

¶33

'o ,.^{,n" Principal Secretary to Government'SchoolEducationDepartment' BRKR}

¶34

,+|3"6lf,n':'*i;":leT,:3lx"1ti?33h'Hvderabad

¶35

2 The District Educational Officer, Sangareddy District. 4 The District Educational Officer, Medak District. 5 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES^- l, High Court for the State of^{Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶36

t) One CC to SRI.SRIRAM POLALI, Advocate [OPUC] 7 Two CD Copies One spare copy S.A BS s"

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810412022

ORDER

WP.No.18635 of 2022

...; .;)iAfE
t
/, q
oo ilIF"Pi-: '-" .l': ,i
*

¶43

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶44

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶45

n7'

Minhaj Nazima v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minhaj Nazima v. The State of Telangana and 3 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

R. Jyothi Vs The District Educational Officer

Hirekar Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Neelima Lele Vs The State of Telangana

G.Yadi Reddy Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

P.Srinivasulu Vs The Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education and 2 Others

T. Ravikanth Vs The State of Telangana