Disposed

Sri N.Narayana v. The District Educational Officer

Telangana HC19 Oct 2023WP/29579/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-member bench disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus to set aside orders deputation the petitioner to a different school, declaring them illegal and arbitrary. The court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within four weeks before dismissing the petition otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 03.10.2023 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Sri N.Narayana Vs The District Educational Officer — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^321e ]

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI^OEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29579^OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Srr N.Narayana, S/o. Thirumalaiah, Aged about 54^{years, Occu.School} Assistant (Telugu) ZPHS (B) Kadthal, Kadthal tr/andal, Ranga Reddy District. R/o.F.No. 4O4, Sangameswara Arcade, Bairamalguda, Saroornagar, Hyderabad-500 035.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

I The District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

2 The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad

¶14

.) The Director of School Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad.,

¶15

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

5 D.Raghavender Chary, S.A.(Telugu), S/o: and Age not known to^petitioner, ZPHS, Burgula, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order'or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the impugned orders^{issued by the 'l't} respondent vide Rc.No.Sp1lA5l2023, dated 21-8-2023 whereunder^deputingthe petitioner to work at ZPHS(B),Kadthal, Kadthal Mandal is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and Violative of Articles^'14 and^'16 of the Constitution of lndia andconsequently^set aside the same with a direction to the Respondents No.1-4 to continue the services of the Petitioner as School Assistant (Telugu) at ZPHS(B), Kadthal, Kadthal Mandal, R. R. District.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support oI the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.:l lo consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal dated 3-10-2023 pending disposal of the W.P.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M VENKATASWAMY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVIDEVI}

¶26

w.P. No.29579 of^2o23

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

In this writ petition, the^{petitioner is seeking a} \,'i-it of Mandamus declaring the^{impugned orders} iss;ued by' the 1'r respondent^{vide Rc.No.SPl/A5/2023'} d:rted 21.08.2023 placrng the petitioner on deputation to rvork at ZPHS(B), Kadthal, Kadthal Mandal as illegai arrrl arbitrzrrv.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶30

that the said order speaks about an enquiry against the petitioner. Ir is submitted that the deputation can never be without consent of the party. It is further submittcd that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 03.1O.2023 against the orders of De putaticln and is seeking a clirection to the rcspondents to consider the same.

¶31

¶32

Learned Government pleader for Services I is also heard on behalf of the respondents.

¶33

<br>

¶34

¶35

lJar-ing Leqarcl to the above far:ts, tltis Court deems it llt :rnci l)roper to direct the respondents to consider the representatioll of the petitioner dated 03.10.2023 and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a penod of Fr>ur (04) wecks frorn the date of receipt of a coPY oi-this ordr:r

¶36

Accorc|rrgl-v, this rvrit^{pctition is disposed of}

¶37

There shall^{be tlo order :rs to costs}

¶38

1n N4iscellrtneous^{pctitions, ifany, pending}

¶39

this wrlt^{pt:tition,sl-rall stand closed}

¶40

sD/'P S3,DsYffi"*Et'EiRRX

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

l.rheDistrictqd,"g]iRL1r^o^f :'ffi '*,1?,1Y?[,?*il?]''j'rtt;'rorg 2. rhe^{Resion'rr"lll} ?l',Tlil.lliBl ilrr"si; stite, uyaeraoao -- i +ffi B [::l;:^il "'.',:':Jr:iffi si; i; "1^{i""r' nsan a' Sch6olEd ucation}

¶45

;?i?'g[.t".:ii"y':i*#':li'rfr^{ul*m:,t?'.Y'"iorreansanaa'i} Hvderabad [OU^{I I} z. Two^{CD CoPies} TJ GJP \k

HIGH^COURT

DATED:1911012023

ORDER

WP.No.29579^{of 2023}

¶50

Y\ 6 st-AT€
(
.g
2 0 N[\ fir2l o
\O
--
{
t t:.1
D

¶51

DISPOSTNG^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶52

t\ )>
tk

Sri N.Narayana v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N.Narayana v. The District Educational Officer

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

Rodda Jahnavi Vs The State of Telangana

Doddavarapu Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Jadhav Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana

M.Nehru Chawan Vs The State of Telangana

M. Sri Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Mohammad Gousoddin Vs The State of Telangana