Dismissed

M. Rohini, Nirmal v. the State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC25 Sept 2023WP/29065/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking declaration that the non-appointment of the petitioner as a Hindi Pandit Grade-II was illegal and a direction for her appointment. The Court held that the petitioner's qualification was unrecognized and the petition was time-barred.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No costs awarded. Pending miscellaneous applications closed.

M. Rohini, Nirmal Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{J. SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29065^{OF 2017}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Rohini, W/o M. Narsing^{Rao, aged about51 years,Housewife, Fl/o} H.No.'1-3-176/4, A.N. ReddyColony,^{Nirmal District - 504 106.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secreiariat^{Buildings, Secretariat,Hyderabad}

¶11

1. Th6 Directoi of School Education,^{State of Telangana, Saifabad,Hyderabad.} 3. The District Educational Officer, Nizamabad.,

¶12

...RES'ONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 ol^{the Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ or order or direction,^{especiallyone in the nature of writ} of Mandamus^- i) declare the action^{of the respondents in not giving appointment} order to the^petitioner as Hindi^{Pandit, Grade-ll,pursuantto the DSC-2002,as} illegal and arbitrary ii)^{consequentlydirect the respondentsto appoint the} petitioner as Hindi Pandit, Grade-ll, along^with the^{other candidates pursuantto} the selections conducted^{in DSC-2002, duly grantingall other consequentialand} attendant benefits.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017^(WPMP. NO: 36178^OF20171

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the respondents to consider^{the petitioner's case for appointmentto the} post of Hindi Pandit, Grade-ll, by considering her representation^{dt 28-01-2015'} pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VASUDEVA^REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: ASST.^{GP FOR SERVICESI}

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE IION,BLE SRI JUSTICE; J. SREENryAS RAO

¶20

lIIRIT PETITION No.29O65 of 2OL7

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Writ Petition is filec[ seeking the following

¶23

relief: -

¶24

'to issue a u-tit or order or direction especiallg one irt the nature of Writ of Ifiandctmus i) declare the action of the respondents in not giuing appointment order to tlrc petitioner as Hindi Pandit, Grade II pursuant to the DSC-2OO2, as illegal and arbitrary

¶25

ii) consequentlg direct the resp<lndents to appoint the petitioner as Hindi Panciit, Grade-II along uith the other candidates pursuant to the seiections conducted in DSC-20O2, dulg granting all other consequential and attendant benefits-"

¶26

Heard Sri K.Vasudeva Red(ly, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant riovernment Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶27

Learned counsel for the peritioner submits that petitioner studied Hindi Pandit course in Biloli Centre, Nanded District, Maharashtra, conducted by Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hl.derabad. Basing on the above qualification, petitioner appeared for District Selection Committee-2OO2(for short "DSC 2OO2") and he was selected as Hindi Pandit, Gr:lde-II. However, the respondents not issued the appointment order. Aggrieved

¶28

)

¶29

¶30

by the sarrle, the petitioner and other selected candidates have approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal(for short "A.P.A.T.) by filing several O.As. O.A.No.7532 of 2OOS was filed by the petitioner. Having considered, the A.P.A.T. has allowed the O.As declaring that, the certificates issued by Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad, prior to rejection of permission by the^NCTE cannot be declared as invalid. Inspite of the same,^the respondents have not considered the representation submitted by the petitioner and not issued arly appointment orders. Therefore, the action of the respondents is contrar5r to law.

¶31

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I submit that the composite State of Government of Andhra. Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 28.ll.2OO7 clarifying the issue and^{directedto act} accordingly and appointment orders were issued to^the eligible candidates in DSC-2OO2. Further, Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I submits that^the petitioner studied Hindi Pandit course in Biloli Centre, Nanded District, Maharashtra, conducted by^Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad^{which is not} recognized^for

t I

consideration of Hindi Pandit and the case of the petitioner was rrot considerecl and now the entire process was completed arrd petitioner is not entitled for any relief

¶37

Having considereci the rivarl submissions made bv the respective parties atld ztft::- F,erusal of the entire material availaltie on record, it is urrdisputed fact that the petitioner str-rdied Hindi F,andit course in Biloli Centre, Nanded District, IvI a.h aras;htr.a, anrd the same was not recognized by the respondenr:.s. In vieu, of the same, the petitioner claim rvas not ccnsidered; entire selection process was compietccl in the year 2OOZ. But the petitioner apprcached this Court <tn 22.O8.2O17 after lapse of 1O year-s. On both the gr,:unds, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

'6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶39

¶40

Pending miscellaneous arplications, if any, shall

¶41

stand closed.

¶42

SDLT.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRA

//TRUE COPY//

SECTl OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI K. VASUDEVA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶47

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510912023

;ilh
1t $tI ?ffl

ORDER

WP.No.29065 ot 2017

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

G)q;& u$oq.--

¶58

<"--t*'

M. Rohini, Nirmal v. the State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Rohini, Nirmal 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

Sanda Balu Vs The State of Telangana

Tangirala Shankari Vs The State of Telangana

Vijaya Bhanu Bondada Vs The State of Telangana

B. Chinna Narsimhulu Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary

G.P. Jyothi Grace Vs The Telangana State Road Transport

Sameena, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer