Allowed

M. Sukanya v. The State of Telangana And 4 Others

Telangana HC7 Jul 2022WP/28409/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction to post a widow serving as a Language Pandit in a school in her original district (Hanumakonda) instead of her new posting in Jayashankar Bhoopalpally District, extending widow preferential allotment benefits. Court directedposting withinfour weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to post the petitioner in a nearby school of equivalent status in Hanumakonda District within four weeks of receipt of the order.

M. Sukanya Vs The State of Telangana And 4 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE^{SEVENTH DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON'BLE THE^{CHIEFJUSTICEUJJAL BHUYAN} AND THE HON'BLE^{MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶5

WRIT PETIT^{ION NO: 28409 0F 2022}

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

N,4. Sukanva. W/o^{late J SudharshanGoud Aged 53 years Occ Language} if ;;:i"i+LTJ o,;i^{"zFns c-;'il;;;J;,Bnupala"patlv tvllndar' Javashankar} b;;;;rilrli;"D1.tntt^{nlo- r-l r'ro z-a2,Haian$art6v lt/andalHanumakonda} District

¶8

"'PETlrloNER

¶9

AND

¶10

I The State of Telangana,^{Represented by its ChiefSecretary'Secretariat} Buildinos, Hvderabad.

¶11

2 Represented^{bv its Principal,secretary'School} i#ti;!. "ii"iJ'igu"u -oe pi rtm"ent, S ec ieta ri at B u i I d i n g s, H yd e ra bad

¶12

3 corriti.n"i i d;"-rt' ";^{and Directoiaieof SchoolE?ucaiion Governmentof Telangana} Khairatabad, HYderabad

¶13

1. The District Educational^Officer ( FAC). Hanumakonda District

¶14

The District^{EducationalOfficer} irRC),^{.layasfrankar Bhoopalpally District'}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith' the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ or order^{or direction more particularly one in the natureof} Writ of Mandamus^{declaring theimpugnedG O'MsNo 317 General} Administration(SPF-I)Departmentdaled06ll2l202lissuedfortheorganization of local cadre in^{respectof posts underthe stateGovernmentand for the} allotment of^{perionsholding such posts to the tocal cadreto be so organized} with respect to District^{cadre posts is ultra viresthe Presidentialorders issued} vide Order GSR.B20(E)^{dated 29 08.2018and amendment order dated} 2610412021 vide^{GSR.279(e)in exerciseof powers conferredby clause(1) and} (2) of Article 371-D of constitution^{of lndia and in supersession of the Notification} under GSR.524(E)^{dated1811o11975 in its application to the state of Telangana} andrepublishedvideGolvlsNo'l24GeneralAdministration

¶17

(SPF/SC)Department dated 30.08.20'18 by the Respondent No.1 and denial of preferential allotment to special category of employees (Widows) under Guideline No.22 and duly allotting to Jayashankar Bhopalpally District instead of Hanumakonda District vide impugned allotment proceedings No.ES/ES/WA/JAYA/LAPA/O332 dated 2211212021 and posting proceedings No.ES/SC/JAYA/LAPA/0015 dated 06/01/2022 issued by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 is as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles. 14, 16,21, 309 and 371-D of the Constitution of lndia and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents herein and to extend the benefit of the preferential allotment under the category of widow vide guideline No. 22 of GO Ms No.317 to the petitioner and allot to Hanumakonda District.

¶18

fA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

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 grant stay of all further proceedings of the impugned allotment vide No.ES/ES/WA/JAYA/LAPA/O332 dated 2211212021 and posting proceedings No.ES/SC/JAYA/LAPA/0015 dated 06/0'1/2022 issued by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 while directing the respondents to allot and post the petitioner in a nearby School within Hanumakonda District by extending the special preferential allotment under the category of Widow vide guideline No.22 of G.O.Ms.No.317, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. SASIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI A. SANJEEV KUMAR,

¶21

SPECIAL GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶22

The Court made the following: OROER

¶23

¶24

THP HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL^BHI.IYAN

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶27

WRIT PETITI ON No.284O9 of 2022

¶28

ORDER: eer the Hon'ble the Chief Justice^{llijaLBhuaan)}

¶29

Heard Mr. P.Sasidhar^{Reddy,learned counselfor the} petitioner and Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar,^{learned Special} Government Pleader appearing for^{School Education} Department.

¶30

Petitioner was serving as^{Language PanditGrade} -^II (Telugu) in ZPHS Inavole Mandal, Hanumakonda^District' Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.317, dated^{06.72.2O2L,she was} transferred to and posted at^{ZPHSGorlaveedu,} Bhupalapally Mandal, Jayashankar^{Bhoopalpally District.}

¶31

It may be mentioned that^{as per clause 22 of the} aforesaid Government Order,^{preference would be given to} be certain special categories^{ofemployeesto} accommodated as far as^{practicablein the place of their} choice. Such categories include^{widows appointed on} compassionate appointment scheme.^{In the case of the}

¶32

petitioner there is no dispute^{that she was a widowat the} time of her appointment.^{Of course we find that a} coordinate Bench of^{this Court in W.P.No.)'3602 ol 2022} had passed an interim^{order on 16.03.2022taking a pima} facie^{view that there can be no discriminationbetvt'een} widows as they form^{a single class. If any relaxation has} been granted to^{widows appointed on compassionate} ground, such relaxation should^{be extendedto all widows} whether appointed^{on compassionate ground or not'}

¶33

At this stage, learned^{SpecialGovernment Pleader} submits that^petitioner has^{already joined her new place of} posting.

¶34

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submits that} petitioner would be satisfied^{if a direction is issuedto the} respondents to accommodate^{her in a nearby school where} she was earlier working.

¶35

In view of the^{above, u'e direct respondent No'3} / , i.e., Commissioner^{and Director of SchoolEducation,} Telangana, to post the^{petitioner in a nearby schoolof}

¶36

¶37

equivaient status to ZPHS Inavole Mandal,^Hanumakonda

¶38

District. The said exercise shall be carried out^{within a} period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a^{copy of} this order.

¶39

Writ petition is accordingly disposed^of.

¶40

Miscellaneous applications^pending, if^{any, shall}

¶41

stand closed. Hou,ever, there shall be^{no orderas to costs.}

¶42

//TRUE COPY'

¶43

SD/-K.ONESM i DEPUTY^REGISTKAR / J,/

¶44

SECTION^OFFICER

¶45

To. 1. The Chief^{Secretary'State of Telangana Secretariat Buildinqs'} a^^ratarirt Br rildinos. H yv dera b0 a do. ? rhe Princio't sec'etai)l5ci'ooiio'i"'tion^{Department' Stateof Telangana'}

¶46

¶47

. ::mrul*"t#^{:,trB' [lf"",.n3ldt s.noor Ed ucation Governmentor reIansana} " xfriiratanaO, HYderabad 4 The District^{faucati6iZioficer tlAQ)' Hanumakonda District} 5 rhe District^{eor"at'6n3i 5ri""i ilAQi,Javashankar Bhoopalpallv District} 3 o.Z^{"id i"' 5'i p lSr'J,o*r.riiReoiiv'Rovocate[o PUCI} TTwo cCs^{to GP to't"nJluiXinlli.tist"tionHigi'coirrt for the State ot} ' .l"frnqina at Hyderabad tQUfl R rwo ccs to cp^{ro|. ilfiJoiEJu;ation,} '^{High ,} -L^{,'^'court for the state of Telangana}

¶48

at Hvderabad [OUT]

¶49

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶50

10.One SPare^CoPY s1.11

PS, A,\^{

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710712022

ORDER

WP.No.28409 of 2022

1 HE STA)'
<br>(t(v
coJ 1 2 JUL 2[22 a
t
Dt q_9
r:AT CY<br>

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE^WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

*
{
I"}

M. Sukanya v. The State of Telangana And 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sukanya v. The State of Telangana And 4 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

M/s. Gulf Oil Lubricants India Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Vanaja Electrical Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s.Tss Impex Private Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer and another

Mr. Yellaiah Setty Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and 2 others

M/s Vijay Silk Mills Vs M/s Archid Plywood Ltd.

Tippani Ashok Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 7 Others