Allowed

Sudershan Lokhande v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Apr 2022WP/9237/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by following a prior order. It directed the relevant State authorities to consider the petitioner's statutory appeals regarding spouse category recruitment and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the appeals filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Sudershan Lokhande Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

I I I I I I i I i I I I I I

¶2

I I I

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 9237 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sudershan Lokhande, S/o.Amruth Rao, Age. 53 Years, Employee lD No. 1304058, Occ. School Assistant (Hindi), GHS Khanapur, Khanapur Mandal, Nirmal District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana,, Rep by Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary General Administration^(SPF-l) Department, Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

I The State of Telangana,, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Director School Education, Education Department, Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Collector,, Cum Nodal Officer for allotment of Teachers, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶16

The District Education Officer,, Cum Nodal Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶17

The District Education Officer,, Nirmal, Nirmal District

¶18

..RESPONDENTS

¶19

.Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof India prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of Respondents 4 to 6 in considering the Statutory Appeals of the Petitioner, Dt.25-12-2021 and 15-02- 2022, under Clause No.23 (under spouse category) etc. etc., of Presidential Order 2018 and G.O.Ms.No.317 Dt. 06-12-2021, as his spouse [/rs. PragnyalyothiKamble Emp. ld. No. 1 306'182 working as School Assistant IMPPIZPP)^(English) at ZPSS Bharampur, Talamadugu Mandal,04 AdilabadDistrict and bad in law and violation of clause 23 Presidential Order 2018 and G.O-Ms.No.317 Dl. 06-12-2021 and consequentially direct the Respondents^{3 to considerthe} Statutory^{Appeal of Writ}

¶20

Petitioner Dt. 25-12- 2021 and 15-02-2022 under Clause No.23 (under spouse category) etc. etc., of Presidential Order 2018 and G.O.Ms,No.317 Dt. 06-122021 , as his spouse Mrs. PragnyalyothiKamble Emp. ld. No. 1306182 working as School Assistant (MPP/ZPP) (English) at ZPSS Bharampur, Talamadugu Mandal, Ad ilabadDistrict he is to 32^junior candidates belonging to Teacher Recruitment Test (TRT) 2017 Local Cadre under Spouse category posted on 09-02-2022 in Adilabad District and setting aside Proc.No. ES/SC/AD/NIRM/SCAS/0015 Dt. 2312-2021 on the file of Respondent NO.4 to 6, as bad in law and violative of Clause No.23 etc. etc., of Presidential Order 2018 and G.O.Ms.No.3'1 7 Dt. 06-122021 .

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶22

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 accept the Spouse certificate Pragnya^jyothi W./o, L.Sudershan as material^paper in this Writ Petition No. 9237 of 2022 and passed such order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

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 Suspend the operation of Proc.No.ES/ SC / AD / NIRM / SCAS /0015 Dl. 23-122021 oa the file of Respondent NO. 4 to 6.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B SUDHAKAR REDDY AND NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'t; GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondents No.S to 6: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

I I I I I

¶27

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.9237 of 2022

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Service-I and perused the record.

¶31

Learned counsel for both sides report that in similar circumstances, this Court passed orders in W.p.No.36688 of 2021 and batch dated 28.12.2021 and, in terms thereof, this writ petition may be disposed of.

¶32

Therefore, recording the aforesaid submissaon of the learned counsel on either side, following the order in W.p.No.366gg of 2O2L and batch dated 28.L2.2021, in terms thereof, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the appeals filed by the petitioner dated 25.L2.2021 and 15.O2.2O22 and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order in W.P. No.366BB of Z02t and batch dated 24.12.2021 shall form part of the record. No order as to costs.

¶33

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

To,

¶35

a"srsriR?ra'4YrAi5nE5 //TRUE coPY/i ,II{^{" -' " '} SECTIdil/bFFIcER

¶36

1 The Chief Secretarv/principal Secretary General Adminrstration (SpF_l) Department, State of telangini, i"rrrdai" i;;;;;t;

¶37

2 IP -Slgt"^{of Telangana, Rep by its prrncipal Secretary,} Departmenl of Schoot Ed ucation, Tetanga-na, Secr6ta/lai, uyJ"i5uro"""' "'"'^r'

¶38

The Director School Education. Education Department, Telangana,

Hyderabad.

/.n u--

i I i i I i I I I

. Ili,"rr:.jr6lr?#l:"". Cum Nodar officer for ailotment of Teachers, Aditabad,

¶44

5' The District Education officer, cum Nodar officer, Adirabad, Adirabad Dislrict.

¶45

The District Education Officer, Nirmal, Nirmal District.

¶46

' ,od""r3i^{to sRl. B SUDHAKAR REDDYAND NEERAJA} REDDY Advocare

¶47

TWO CCS tO GP FOR GI or retansanaii ir;;;r:t:fft iDMrNlsrRArloN, Hish court ror the state

¶48

I Iryo CCs ro Gp FOR r Telansana it r,ro;.XtloiffiL^EDUCATIoN, High court for rhe State of

¶49

.10. Two CD Copies

¶50

'l 1. One Spare Cop v

i I I

) )

I I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110412022

ORDER

WP.No.9237 of 2022

-; t<br>t
(
g 1e JUL 2s22 'o z
ta .,

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

I
2 7

Sudershan Lokhande v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudershan Lokhande v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Yadagiri Vs The District Collector

Rajitha Nerella Vs The State of Telangana and another

Tirumalakonda Nagamani Vs State of Telangana

Shaib Hussain Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

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

Rathod Parameshwari Vs The Union of India