Dismissed

Bhudevi Padmashalli v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC22 Dec 2023WP/1628/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ intervention against respondents inaction regarding her appointment as Multi Purpose Health Supervisor. Respondents disposed of subsequent appeal based on interim order. Court dismissed present petition granting liberty to challenge the order dated 24.02.2022 rejecting petitioner's allocation claim.

What did the court decide?

liberty granted to challenge proceedings dated 24.02.2022; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed

Bhudevi Padmashalli Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ I

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^'t 628 0F 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bhudevi Padmashalli, W/o B. Satyanarayana, Aged about 56 years, Occ Presently working_ as Multi Purpose Health Superviser (F) at pl-ic at Thalelma, Sanga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 T.he State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

3 The District tVledical and Health Officer, Sanga Reddy District. (Erstwhile lvledak Dist.)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of [Vlandamus and to declare the in action of the respondents in ,. passing final orders on the appeal, dt O2-O1-2022 of the petitioner by considering petitioner's case for allocation of District at Medak (sanga Reddy) as per the seniority as fixed by the respondents as per the G.O.Ms.No.3't7, G.A. (SPF-1) Department, dt. 6-12-2021, is as highly illegal arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and also in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and declare the same as bad-in-law and consequently direct the respondents to pass final orders on the appeal, dt. O2-O1-2022 of the petitioner by considering his case for allocation of District at lVledak at Sanga Reddy instead of zone-V Yadaadri on the basis of

¶16

his seniority, as per the G.O.tt/s.No.3.1 7, G.A. (SpF-1) Department, dt 6-12-2021

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under section '1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to pass finar orders on the appear dt. 02-01-2022 of rhe petitioner by considering his case for allocation of District at lvledak at sanga Reddy instead of zone-V yadadri District as per his seniority in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.317, c.A. (SpF- j ) Department, dt. 06-12_2021, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES_lt

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.1628 of 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in passing final orders in the appeal filed by the petitioner, dated 02.O1.2022, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶25

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Services - II appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has placed on record a copy of the proceedings uide Rc.No.32lBlE4-B/2022, dated 24.02.2022, and submitted that in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court on O7.O1 .2022, thie respondents have disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner by duly rejecting her case.

¶26

At this juncture, Iearned counsel for the petitioner has sought liberty to challenge the proceedings, dated 24 02.2022.

¶27

In view of the submissions made by the respective counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to

¶28

¶29

the petitioner to challenge the proceedings, dated 28.02.2022, if she so desires. There sha1l be no order as to costs.

¶30

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

//TRUE COPY//

¶32

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (.,,

¶33

&./ SECTION OFFICER

¶34

To,

¶35

'1 - The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶36

The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶37

The District lVledical and Health Officer, Sanga Reddy District. (Erstwhile l/edak Dist.)

¶38

One CC to SRI C.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI

¶39

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-Il, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶40

Two CD Copies

BSR GJP

$s:

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2211212023

ORDER

WP.No.1628 of 2022

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

r\rq
+-r{A

Bhudevi Padmashalli v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhudevi Padmashalli v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

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

G. Srinu Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Ch.Srivani M.a.(English) Vs The State of Telangana

P. Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana

K.Ramulu Vs State of Telangana

T. Sreedevi Vs The State of Telangana

B. Thirupathaiah Vs The State of Telangana