Dismissed

K.Shyamala, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC4 Aug 2023WP/21937/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a Multi Purpose Health Supervisor challenging an illegal transfer order to another Post Health Centre. Petitioner claimed the transfer was arbitrary and violated government instructions. The matter was heard and the petitioner informed the Court that no further orders were required.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition declared closed without costs; no further orders required.

K.Shyamala, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21937 OF 2018

¶7

Between

¶8

K.Shyamala, W/o. Ismail, Aged about 52^years, Occ. Multi Purpose Health Superviso(MPHS), PHC, Waddepally, Jogulamba Gadwal District, Now transferred to PHC Vipenagandla, Wanaparthi District.

¶9

...PETtTtONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,, Health Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

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

¶13

Smt.N.Jayamma,, W/o. Jayaprakash Rao, Multi Purpose^Health Supervisor(MPHS), PHC, Vaddepally, Jogulamba Gadwal^District

¶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 order or direction more^particularly one in the^natureof Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the impugned Proc. Rc.No.001/GTC/2018^dated 20.06.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent wherein transferring the^{petitioner from} PHC Waddepally to PHC Veepanagandla by considering the^{claim of the unofficial} respondent under spouse category even though she is not^{entitled for the same is} illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, apart from^{violativeof Principles of Natural} Justice and apart from instructions issued by the.^{Governmentand set asidethe} same with a consequential direction to the Respondents^{to consider the claimof} the Petitioner for retention in the same^place or to^{consider the claim of the}

¶16

petitioner for posting at her opted places or any other place in Jogulamba Gadwal District with all consequential benefits.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

Petition under Sr:ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sup:ort of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased suspend the operation of impugned orders issued in Proc.Rc.No.001/GTC/2018 dated 20.06.2018 by directing the respondents to consider the clairn of the, Petitioner for retention in the same place or to consider the claim of the^petitioner for^posting at her opted places or an^y' other place in Jogulamba Gadwal Cristrict by disposing of her representation datel 22.06.2O18 forthwith.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. RAVINDER ALKUCHI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'B LE SRI JUSTICE NAMAI/ARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITIoN NO.2t 937 0F 20ta

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms.P.Kavitha, representing learned counsel fo( the petitioner, informed this Court that no further orders are required in this writ petition.

¶26

2 In view of the above submission, the writ petition is

¶27

closed. No costs.

¶28

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶29

stand closed

¶30

SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANf (+)^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I

¶31

SECTION^OFFICER

¶32

To,

¶33

One CC^{to SRl. RAVINDER ALKUCHI' Advocate'[OPUC]} 2. Two CCs^{to GP fon fraEoiCnf- HEALTH FW 'High Court for the State ot} Telangana^{at HYderabad' [OUT]}

¶34

Two^{CD CoPies}

SB GJP .

HIGH COURT

RRN,J

DATED:0410812023

( .j-:ATS O
?
f c'-rQ ls i:
tr :::,.1
j
-./
+-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

WP.No.21937 of 2018

¶43

GLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶44

K.Shyamala, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Shyamala, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

K. Bhavani Vs M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Shaik Bahseer Vs The State of Telangana

B. Venkaiah Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Parmila Tully and 3 Others Vs T.Bhavani , Bharani and Another

Nukala Saidi Reddy and 3 Others Vs Santosh and 3 Others

S.Bhasker Vs The Superintending Engineer