Dismissed

B. Vasantha v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Telangana HC8 Feb 2022WP/5086/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions were filed challenging the arbitrary allotment of employees to states and the non-finalization of integrated seniority lists. The Court observed that allotment was based on initial appointment, directed respondents to finalize the seniority list, and subsequently allowed and dismissed the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to finalize the integrated seniority list and consider the petition cases for final allotment accordingly; no interference with impugned orders.

B. Vasantha Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH^{CHANDRA SHARMA} ,,\1)

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS: 20990^{OF 2020 & 5086OF 2021}

¶8

WP NO: 20990 OF 2020

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt K. Jaqa Jvothi,^{W/oPraveen BabuAged 43 yearsOccWorking as.Executive} Enoineer d/O fribal Welfare^{RK.R. Puram} ,^{W G. DistSuperintendrngbngrneer (Ex-} officio) zone lll and lV^A.P.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telanqana,^{rep.by its Principal Secretary,Social Welfare Tribal Welfare} Department Secretariat,^{Hyderabad-500022.}

¶14

2 The State of Andhra^{Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary,SocialWelfare Tribal} Welfare Department^{Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Guntur District A P}

¶15

3 The Engineer'in-Chief,^{SocialWelfare Tribal Welfare Department,Stateof Telangana} Hyderabad. of A^{P',rr I}

¶16

4 H'"rHl"fl',t%si?il3^{iSrB?',H??l'Jl3:!ysFjfi:spartmenlstate} occ^{Executive Ensineer ( rncharse) rribar}

¶17

5 nnl,:,ymgrn'iBf^{1f.13fl*,n?fllrlrs}

¶18

lR5 is lmpleaded^{as per CourtOrder Dated 09/1212020ln lA No 3 ol 2o2OlN WP No'}

¶19

)osgo^ot zozo.)

¶20

...RESpoNDENrs

¶21

Hl#,gffifl;#;,g,;g:6ffii1ffirtr

¶22

'&:,.""rB[#':{ijii:l:x'-*il:

¶23

ffi^{ffii*{t";ri"tJ,'*f.I[,'ffi}

¶24

Counsol^{for thE Potitioner:SRl' M KESAVA RAO} Counssl^{forthsRaspondent Nos'1 & 3: GP FOR SOCIALWELFARE} Counsol^{forthe ResPondent Nos'2 & 4: SRI'P' GOVIND REDOY'}

¶25

counset^{tor tne Respondent No'5: sRl' P' AMARENDER}

WP NO: 5086 OF 2021

Between:

B. Vasantha, D/o B. Seetharam, Aged about 44 yearc, W/a Executive Engineer (lncharge) (TW), ITDA Plain Area, N,lasab Tank, Hyderabad, R/o 2-1-146134 Sree Venkat Ramana Colony, Nagole, Medchal District.

¶30

.PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

'1. The State of Telangana and 5 Others, rep., byrtsChief Secretary to Governmenl of Telangana, Secretariat. Hyderabad.

¶33

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Secretary, Tribat Wetfare ( SER.t.A1) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶34

The State of A.P.. rep., by its Principai Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deparlment. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Oistrict.

¶35

The Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare Dept., Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶36

M. Shankar (EE lncharge), EE lncharge) (Chief Engineer) Tetangana State, Hyderabac.

¶37

' Bft:Fiilidii.ii#,'fi,'"EilEl[Rf,'#l49."1,i:d:S[1,HtiiS,.,Xi;l,Ji^EEiJ,,.[?,r=_.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

:1"1T^i.:1ii,:i.'lH"i"^{ffi"fi,4i!,,*} li:Jir,,tJ,i?nn"l.lH;,,iTI,l?".:Xl,Ji,Ji: ilH'"'J:3'"ffi ":,'iL^ffi ":l -^{oll:''o t,, o'" i"'rl' u r" i'"v' ol} ffrruruffi c'""#u:EilHff

¶40

lA NO: 1 OF 2O2i

¶41

'r,+,J.TJr.."J,,,;.{li}h,",#r.ff^{l+iijil1+{,:*rtr}

¶42

tmrrury**u_-*Hrurg tr

¶43

Counset for ths petitioneriRt. p, AMARENDER

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent Nor -s'^{1' 2} I 4: GP FoR soclAl *ELFARE counser for the Respondent 3:

¶45

'^{P' GouND} REDDY

¶46

counser for the R""pona"nt ruo"'

¶47

'^{5 &} 6: sRl' P'v' KRI'HNAIAH The court mado the fortowing:

¶48

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶49

HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶50

W.P.Nos.2O99O of 2020 & 5086 of 2O2L

¶51

COMMON ORDER': ttr, H.nt t 1,. .<a.ttt\tt.p AL,hnotd Kunat shouni)

¶52

Both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of common order and the issue raised in these Writ petitions is one and the same.

¶53

W.P.No.20990 of 2020 is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned G.O.Rt.No.399 dt.23-lo-2o20 as highly a-rbitrary, illegal arrd contrary to the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2O!4 and the orders passed in W.P.No.37288 of 2Ol8 dt.11-10-2018 and consequently set aside the same and award all consequential benefits.

¶54

Heard Sri M.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.l and 3, Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 and Sri P.Amarender, learned counsel for Stt respondent.

¶55

W.P,No.5086 of 2O2l is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not finalizing the seniority list of Deputy E.E's zone wise and integrated seniority list of Deputy E.E's up to 01-06-2014, in spite of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.37288 of 2018

¶56

¶57

dt.11-10-2018 and taking steps to repatriate the petitioner and 6th respondent without finalization of allocation of employees vide G.o.Rt.No.3g9 dt.23-10_2020 and letter dt.19-ll-2120 as illegal, arbitrary and consequenUy direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent in the respective States of working as on 0L-06-2014, as per the provisions of A.p. Re-Orgalization Acf, 2Ol4 and guidelines there under and further direct the respondents to finalize the seniority list in the category of Deputy EE's in the Zonal, cadre as well as integrated level as per the directions of this Court and further consider the case of the petitioner for promotions in the category of E. E,s in a state wide post and tal<e steps for allocation of EE,s Tribal Welfare Engineering Department, as per the provisions of A.p. Re-Organization Act, 20 I 4.

¶58

Heard Sri p.Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner, Iearned Government pleader for Social Welfare, appearing lor respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, Sri p.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri p.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.S and 6.

¶59

W.p.No.50g6 of 2O2l is concerned, the petitioner had contended that without finalizing the seniority list, the respondents have allotted the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Rt.No .584 dt.12_12_2( t7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that as per the

¶60

HCJ & AKS,] w.P.Nos 20990 0f2020 aod 5086 of202l

¶61

¶62

guidelines issued by the respondents, the respondents must first finalise the seniorilr list and as^per the seniority list, notify the options arld thereafter, make final allotment. But in the instant case, no final integrated seniority list^was prepared and contrary to the guidelines, the^{petitioner was} a-ilotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶63

Learned counsel for the^{petitionerhad further} contended that 6ih respondent^{was allotted to the State of} Telangana vide G.o.Rt.No.339^{dt.23-1O-2O2Owithout} finalising the integrated^{senioritylist. Therefore,the action of} the respondents in^{allotting the petitionerto the State of} Andhra Pradesh and^{allotting the 6th respondentto theState} of Telangaaa is arbitrary^{exercise.Therefore, appropriate} orders be^passed in^{the Writ Petition directingthe} respondents to first^{prepare the integratedseniority list of all} Executive Engineers^{and then oniy effectallotmentto the} respective States.

¶64

Learned Government^{Pleaderfor SocialWelfare'} appearing for respondent^{Nos.1 to 4, had contended that the} petitioner was selected^{to the post of DeputyExecutive} Engineer in the^{year 2OO1andshe was allotted to Zone-ll and} Zone-II was forming^{partof the thenAndhra Pradesh arrd the} 6th respondent^{u'as allottedlo Zone-V which was formingpart} of Telangana^{at the initial appointmentAs the petitioneras} well as 6th respondent^{were respectivelyworking in Zone-ll}

¶65

¶66

and Zote-V, the respondents have rightly allotted the petitioner to the State of Andhra pradesh and 6th respondent to t}Ie State of Telarrgana and as arld when final integrated seniority list is prepared, necessary steps would be taken by the respondents for finai allocation of the petitioner as well as 6th respondent. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶67

Learned Government pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 had further contended that in pursuance of the allotment made by the respondents, the petitioner as well as 6th respondent have joined respectivelv in their new places of allotment and as and when the exercise of finalizing integrated seniority list complete, appropriate action would be taken. Therefore, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶68

This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that the petitioner as well as 6ft respondent were allotted to the respective States based upon their initial appointment and as and when the respondents undertake preparation of final integrated seniority list, the respondents would accordingly consider the case of the petitioner as well as 6th respondent for final allotment.

¶69

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordinglv, the W.p.No.50g6 of 2021 is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to

¶70

l \

¶71

t--_

¶72

HCJ & AKS J $ P Noi 10990 012020 and 50E6 of202l

¶73

¶74

finalize the integrated seniority list in the cadre in which the petitioner as well as 6th respondent are working and upon such preparation of integrated seniority list, the respondents are at liberty to fina-1ise the allotment of the petitioner and 6ft respondent accordingly.

¶75

In view of the orders passed in W.P.No.5086 of 2021, no further orders need to be passed in W.P.No.2099O of 2O2O and accordingly the same is also dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs,

¶76

//TRUE COPY/i

¶77

SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I dD

¶78

SECIION OFFICER

¶79

To,

¶80

One CC to Sri.M. Kesava Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 2. 2CCs to Sri. P. Govind Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. 2 CCs to Sri.P. Amarender, Advocate [OPUC]

¶81

One CC to Sri. P.V. Krishnaiah, Advocate [OPUC]

¶82

Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court forthe State of Telangana. [OUII 6. Two CD Copies.

7sw z+'

HIGH COURT

DAf ED:0810212022

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.20990 of 2020 & 5086 of 2021

¶90

1 H E s lA r"'
(
Oo 24 FEB2M2 ,t
*
Dr:
4: !) T a!tF. t,

¶91

Dismissing the Wps Without costs.

¶92

at. ,rr\0,

¶93

B. Vasantha v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Vasantha v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Venkateswara Plot Owners Association, a Society under Vs Govt. of a.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue

Bhagchand Surana, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Smt. Maniza Jumabhoy, Vs Karim Nawaz Alladin

Emmadi Ramakrishna Vs The State of Telangana

M. Krishna Vs The Registrar (Administration)

T. Ramadasappa Naidu Vs The State of Telangana