Dismissed

G. Srinivas, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Sept 2023WP/22004/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Tribunal dismissed a writ petition filed by vocational training instructors challenging their transfer without framed service rules. The matter was closed as infructuous after the respondents submitted that the transfer counseling had concluded. The petition was treated as having no surviving case for further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and miscellaneous applications were dismissed as infructuous and closed without order as to costs.

G. Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTETVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22004 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Srinivas, S/o. G. Papaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Vocational Training lnstructor, At ZPHS (G), Malkajgiri, Medchal District, Ranga Reddy District (ord)

¶9

S. Naveen Kumar, S/o. Ramulu, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Vocational Training lnstructor, At ZPHS (B), Kama Reddy, Kama Reddy District, Nizamabad (Old)

¶10

A. Ramesh, S/o. Kistaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Vocational Training lnstructor, At ZPHS (B), Kama Reddy, Kama Reddy District, Nizamabad (Old)

¶11

D. Srinivas Rao, S/o. Kishan Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Vocational Training lnstructor, At GHS Harshapally, Nizamabad District.

¶12

K. Ganesh, S/o. Govindha Rao, Aged about 55^years, Occ. Vocational Training lnstructor, At GHS, Bansuwada, Kama Reddy, Nizamabad District.

¶13

N. Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged about 53^years, Occ. Vocational Training lnstructor, At GHS, Bheemgal, Nizamabad District.

¶14

K. Anuradha, D/o. Dasha Goud, Aged about 46^years, Occ. Vocational Training lnstructor, At ZPHS, Nandhipet, Nizamabad District.

¶15

M. Paravathi, D/o. Laxmi Narayana, Aged about 53^years, Occ: Vocational Training lnstructor, At ZPHS, Kotagiri, Nizamabad District.

¶16

G. Sujana, D/o. G. Rama Reddy, Aged about 52^years, Occ. Vocational Training lnstructor, At ZPHS, Kolanupaka, Yadhadri Bhongiri District, Nalgonda (Old).

¶17

G. Parvathamma, D/o. Anantha Ramaiah, Aged about 50^years, Occ. Vocational Training lnstructor, At Government Boys High School, Nalgonda District.

¶18

M.P. Padmavathi, D/o. Prabhaker, Aged about 56^years, Occ. Vocational Training lnstructor, At Government (Girls) High School, Yadhadri Bhuvangiri District, Nalgonda (Old)

¶19

'12. K. Shakunthala, D/o. Prathap Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Vocational Training lnstructor, At ZPHS^(B), Suryapet, Suryapet District, Nalgonda^(Old).

¶20

13.A. Mallesham, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 54^years, Occ. Vocational Training lnslructor, At ZPHS, Chinthapally, Nalgonda District.

¶21

lndira Kulkarn , D/o. Dattatri Rao, Aged about^-4. ye r11;, O,rc. Vocational Training lnstru ltor, At ZPHS, Patanchervu (Girls lligh S chool) Sanga Reddy District, Ir/edak (old)

¶22

15.8. Shiraleela, D/o. B. Pentaiah, Aged about^r9 yertrs, C)r;c. Vocational Training lnstru:tor, At ZPHS, Girls High School, f)atanchr rvu, Sanga Reddy District, tVedak (Old)

¶23

....,PETITIONERS

¶24

AND

¶25

The State cf Telangana, rep.by its Principal Se(;retary, S;chool Education Departmenr, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad - 500 C22 .

¶26

The Comrr issioner and Director of School Educatior , C)pp. Telephone Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 O22.

¶27

The District Educational Officer, Malkajgiri, [/edchal E isrrict. Ranga Reddy District (Old )

¶28

The District Educational Officer, Kama Reddy, liama l?edd1')istrict, Nizamabad (Old)

¶29

The District Educational Officer, Nizamabad, Ni;ramahar.l Dis'.rict.

¶30

The District Erjucational Officer, Yadhadri Bhon,;iri Dis;trict,^,Jalgonda (ord).

¶31

The District Educational Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda li rtri(l

¶32

B. The District Educational Officer. Suryapeta, SurTapetz f,istricl, Nalgonda (ord)

¶33

The District Educational Officer. Sanga Reddy t)istrict l\led l< (Old)

¶34

..,..RESPONDENTS

¶35

Petition Under Article 226 of lte Constitution ol lndia praying that in the circumstances staterl rn the affidavit filed therewith, the tlirrh lourt may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of directirn, preferably one in the nature of Writ of [\landamus and to issue a direc ion, ])r(ler^()r writ more particularly one in th: nature of Writ of t,4andamus to declare the action of the respondents are forc ng the petitioners to participate irr the frrnsfer counseling to the post of Vocatir,nal Training lnstructors for which so far tltere is no service rules were framed till date, without their being any service ru e:; the respondents cannot transfer the 6 etitioners from place to other place tht: l;aic action of the respondents is highll illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory vvithoul ;rny application of mind and also in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Cons:rtrrtion of lndia and declare the same as bad in law and consequently cirect :h{) rr.,spondents to

¶36

¶37

continue the petitioners in their respective^places till framing of service^{rules in} their respective categories.

¶38

I.A.NO:1 OF 2018

¶39

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 not to insist the petitioners to attend the ensuing transfer counseling to the post of vocational training instructors by continuing the petitioners in their respective places pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI C.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY

¶41

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶42

The Court made the following ORDER

¶43

THE HON '8L E SRI JUSTICE NAMAV RAPU RA.JES}IWAR RAO

¶44

¶45

WRIT PET ITION No.22Oo4 o F 201.8

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

( (

¶48

Toda), when the matter is takerr up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleadt:r ap[)earing for respondent:; submitted that this Court on 2 3.16.2018, in LA.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.22004 of 20LB had passed the following orier:-

¶49

"Admitredly, the petitioners are now wcrkinlT on permar ent basis in the service of Zilla Parishad service,/Govern ment service and in the cad,-e equivallnt to Secondary Grade Teacher. Any employ=e belonging to the Governn,ent servicel'Zilla Parishad service is liable fitr transfet ancl cannot say that he/she cannot t,e shifted lo out of the working place. The,tran;fer counselting schedule is announced and as revised, 29th June, 2018 is the last date f<tr exercisilg options of places in the web counsel'ing. Therefore, the Court is nor inclined to stay the counselling process, at this stage. However, if the representations of the petitioners are already received and penoing considet'ation, it is open to the ccmpet=r t authorit/ to examine the claim of lhe petitioners and take appropriate decision beftr= cou nsellⁱ nq process is fi na I ized. "

¶50

Learne I Assistant Government Pleadt:r further submits

¶51

that the said counsellinE was concluded and Further submitted that the caus e in the writ petition does not :;urvive for 1'urther adjudication.

i.i

Learned counsel for the petltioners had fairly acceded to

¶56

the same.

¶57

In view of the above submissions, this writ petition is

¶58

dismissed as infructuous.

¶59

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶60

closed' No order as to costs'

¶61

sn,' c. 'TREESHA

¶62

rrrRuE coPY/'^{^tt':::rffi:::':::} 'TREESHA^I

¶63

e State^{of Telangana} ".t','tJlii * ::ff il ^:":::i: :: ; ;'i;tE't SA GJPfo

HIGH COUR'1-

DATED:25105t12023

ORDER

WP.No.22004 of 2018

cl .
s
<) _,7 /
c,

DISMISSING THE W.P

AS INFRUCTIJOUS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶71

\12
N."i^"

G. Srinivas, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Srinivas, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Venkataiah Vs B.Venkat Reddy and Anr.

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt.S.Vijaya Laxmi,Sri Latha and 5 Others

Abu Sufiyan, S/o.Md.Israil, Aged 15 Years Student Vs The Depot Manager

Omprakash Dodiya Vs Ravindra Sai and Another

Puttapaka Srinivas Vs M/S.Sirpur Paper Mills Limited and Anr.

Ambekar Shankar Vs Syed Ahmed Ali Pasha and Another