Disposed

Ravutla Sravanthi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Aug 2023WP/3046/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached the High Court via writ petition challenging her rejection for the post of Anganwadi Teacher. The Court noticed pending representations and disposed of the writ by directing the relevant authorities to decide the representations within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 5 to dispose of the petitioner's representations dated 29.12.2018 and 31.12.2018 within four weeks.

Ravutla Sravanthi Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s71

¶2

: { i i:

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENW THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:3046 OF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ravutla Sravanthi, W/o.R.Laxman, Aged abcut 27^years, Occ; Housewife, Rl/o.Brahmanpally (V), Yedpally (M), Nizamabad District.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Child Development and Project Officer, lntegrated Child Development

¶14

' Services (ICDS), Bodhan, Nizamabad District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Yedapally, Nizamabad District.

¶16

The District Welfare Officer, Women ard Child Disable and Senior Citizens Nizamabad District.

¶17

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Nizamabad District.

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition Under Article 226 ol 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.2 herein by vide Letter No.72lEl2O18, dt.'19.01.2019 as^petitioner ineligible for the post of Anganwadi Teacher as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of lndia consquently it is further^prayed that this Honorable Court may be^pleased to direct the respondent no.3 herein^{to consider} the representation made by the^petitionet dt.28.12.2018.

¶20

|.A.NO:'t OF 2019

¶21

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 respondent no.2 herein to consider the^{petitionersapplication} dt.28.12.2018 for the post of Anganwadi Teacher immediately without^reference to the impugned order letter d1.19.01 .2019^pending disposal of the^{above writ} petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V.Raghunath

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5 : GP For Revenue Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4: GP ForWomen^{Dev and Child Welfare} The Court made the following Order :-

¶24

t7 //

¶25

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JTIV\IADI SRIDE;VI WRIT PETITION No.3O46 oF 2019

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Petitioner is aggrieved of rejection of her applir:ation for the post of Anganwadi Teacher.

¶28

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶29

Case of the petitioner is that pursuant t<> the notification issued in February, 2018, she has subrnitted application for the post of Anganwadi Teacher th.rough online. The said application was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the original residential cerLificate was not submitted by her at the tirne of verification of certificates. Case of the petitioner is that she is resident of Brahmanapalli village, and to that affect, she has submitted the certihcate issued by respondent No.3 on 2l.O2.2OIa and in spite of the same, her applicatiorr was erroneously rejected.

¶30

Respondent No.2 has filed counter alhdavit stating that the petitioner has failed to produce the original residential certificate when she attended for certLficate

¶31

¶32

Justlce ,uwadl sridevi WP.lto.3(N6 of2019

¶33

¶34

verilicatioll on 23.O2.2O1g, therefore, her application was rejected on 28.O2.2O1g. It is stated that since the applications were made through online mode, production of original certificates was made compulsory, however, since the petitioner has failed to produce the certificate to show that she was residing at Brahmanapalli village, her application was rejected.

¶35

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has made representations dated 2g.l2.2}lg and 3L.12.2018 to respondent Nos.2 and 5 respectively and the same are still pending. He seeks to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the said representations. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing for respondents expressed no objection for granting such relief.

¶36

In view of the above submissions, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 5 to dispose of the representations made by the petitione r on 2g.I2.2Olg and 31.I2.2O18 respectively, in accordance with law,

¶37

I I t I I i: 'i!

¶38

¶39

Iustice lu^{wadt Srldevl} WP. No.rlo46 ofZO19

¶40

¶41

¶42

within four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶43

this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶45

Petition, shall stand closed

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

SD/- G, SIREESHA ASSISTANT ]IEGISTRAR .:[r-1 .-

¶48

SECTICIN OFFICER

¶49

¶50

The Principal Secretary, Department^{of Revenue, Secretariat,Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶51

The Child Development and Project Officer,^{lntegrated Child Deve:lopment} Services (ICDS), Bodhan, Nizamabad^District.

¶52

The Tahsildar, Yedapally, Nizamabad District.

¶53

The District Welfare Officer, Women^{andChild Disable and Senior Citizens} Nizamabad District.

¶54

The District Collector and District Magistrate,^{NizamabadDistrict.} 6. One CC to Sri V.Raghunath, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court^{for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶56

B. Trivo CCs to GP For Women Development^{and ChildWelfare,HighCourt for} the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶57

I Two CD Copies

SA GJP \

t II j ! l :]

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310812023

ORDER

.:--.:-.-:<
; r,\l i: a
1r r Stt rsI
L :l
.tl

WP.No.3046 of 2019

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

<br>

Ravutla Sravanthi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravutla Sravanthi 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

Ch. Venkata Sukumari Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Ksheerasagar Ramesh Vs Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Jakkula Manohar Vs The State of Telangana

Ch.Vijaya Bhaskar Vs The Regional Joint Director

M D Abdul Ali Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

P. Balram Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation