Disposed

D Sandhya Rani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023WA/744/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged a Single Judge order dismissing her writ petition regarding non-issuance of a hall ticket and non-declaraton of examination results. Court permitted her to participate in the exam and directed respondents to declare her result and consider her appointment if she is within the selection zone, disposing the appeal without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to declare the result of the appellant and consider her case for appointment if within the zone of consideration; disposed without costs.

D Sandhya Rani Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 744 OF 2023

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the Order daled 2810712023 passed in W.P.No.18730 of 2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

D.Sandhya Rani, D/o D Bhoomanna Aged about 35 years Occ.House-Hold Ryo 4 3 1/ 1A4i4 Rajeev Nagar Bhainsa Mandal Nirmal District Telangana

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

ANO

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Pd. Secretary, Education Department Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad T S

¶14

2 The Convener Telangana Residential Educational lnstitutions Recruitment Board TREIRB, 4th Floor DSS Bhavan Opposite of Chacha Nehru Park Masab Tank Hyderabad Telangana

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

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 representation made to 2nd respondent on 24.06 2023 and to issue hall ticket to write an examination scheduled to be held on 7th,^gth and 12th of August, 2023.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S.DEEKSHITH KUMAR TEJA, REP. FOR

¶19

SRI JANARDHAN GOUD SUNKARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR SERVICES-I (EDUCATION) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N.RAMESH, SC FOR TREIRB The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

HON'BLE SRI WSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶22

U/.A.No.744 OF 2o23

¶23

JIIDGMENT: (Per Hort'ble Si Justice Abhinand Kumar Shauili)

¶24

This Writ Appeal is fited aggrieved by the^{orderpassed by} the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18730 of 2023^{dt.28.O7.2023.}

¶25

Heard Sri S. Deekshith Kumar Teja, learned^Counsel for^the appellant and Sri N. Ramcsh, learned Standing^{Counselfor the} respondents.

¶26

It has been contended by the learned Counsel for^the appcllant that shc is full-r'cligiblc and^qualificd to^{be appointed to} the post of Trained Graduate Teacher for Telugu^{subjectand the} respondents have issued a notification on 05'04.2023.^The appcllant has rcsponded to thc said notification.^{However, the} appellant was not given any Hall-Ticket. In^those set^of circumstances, the appellant has approached this^{Courtby way of} filing W.P.No. 18730 of 2023 and the learned Single^{Judge of this} Court^\A/a.s pleased [o dismiss the said Writ^{Petition on} 28.07 .2023. Aggrieved by the same, the^{present appeal is filed'}

¶27

¶28

\ KS.,I & I{ItN.J \^{,</sup> ii'.-rJ:l o( 102-1}

¶29

Leamed Counsel for the appellant had contended that at the timc of adrnission of Writ AppeaJ, this Court permitted the appellant to participate in the examination for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher for Telugu subject. Accordingly, the appellant has appearcd for thc selection process. [{o,,vcvcr. Ihe rcsponclents al'c noI declaring the results. Thercfore, the l<:arned Counscl lor thc appellant submits that appropriate orders be passed itr the Writ Appeal by directing the respondents to dcclare the result of thc appeliant, and if the appellant is comi:rg rvithin iltc zr>rrc o[ consideration for appointment for the post o[ Trained Graduare Tcacher for Telugu subject, lct thc rcspoitdcltts consider the case oI thc appellant for app<>intmcnt rc thc saicl post.

¶30

Learned Standing Counsel for respondents had contended that since the appellant was permitted to par.ticipate in the selection process in compliancc s ith thc in[crirrr orclcrs passcd b-r this Court, let the Writ Appeal be disposed of directing the respondents to declare the result of the appellant, and if the appellant is coming u.ithin thc zone of consideration, the case of thc appellant u,ould be consrdered lor appointment ibr the post of Trained Graduate Teacher for Telugu st_rbject.

¶31

AKS.J &^RRN.J wA No.744^{ol' 2023}

¶32

-.1

¶33

This Court,^{having considcredthe rival submissionsmade} by the learned^{counsel for the respective parties' is of the} considered^{view that this writ Appeal can be disposedof directing} the respondents^{to declare the result ol the appellant' and if the} appellant is^{comingwithin thezone ofconsiderationfor} appointment^{for the post of Trained Graduate Teacherfor Telugu} subject, the^{respondents shallconsiderher case and pass} appropriate^{orders in accordancerl'ith lart''}

¶34

There shall^be 7 Accordingly,^{the Writ Appeal is disposed of} no order^{as to costs}

¶35

As a sequel,^{miscellaneousapplicationspending' if any ' in} this Writ^{Appeal,shall stand ciosed'}

,,TRUE^coPY'//

,iSlrh^ASfl"fiX[

sECTloN^fftrtcEn

To, 1. The Prl.^{Secretary' EducationDepartment' SecretariatBuildings' Hyderabad'} 2. +iX p^ard TREIRB' ff:il9'^tXiu 4th^nn, l-loor'^{n, DSS Bhavan' Resid e ntia I Ed Opposne}1'1":-'^r $'3H::ff^{ftff ["[."Tl}

¶40

3 4 5. ?l#jl';$f}Agffi1irm:m{3,',;{."' 6 Two^{CD CoPies}

¶41

BSR SB 6

¶42

l*",*"^.'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210912023

JUDGMENT

WA.No.744 of 2023

1 H€ gI4, 16
P
+
o
06 0[I2m c)z:
.<<br>] nr'*
O4.l'!rt-rlli

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL,

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

eld

D Sandhya Rani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Sandhya Rani 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of a.P.,Transport,Randb.,Hyd.,and Anr. Vs Sri B. Manikyam, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Dr. Uzma Viquar Vs The Director

Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalgonda Dist and 2 Others Vs G. Linga Reddy, Nalgonda Dist and Ano

S. Venu Vs T. Raghavender Reddy

The Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited Vs Sabbu Rajamouli

D.S.Rajendernath , Vs The Central Administrative Tribunal