Dismissed

K.Vykunta Chary v. Special Chief Secy.

Telangana HC25 Sept 2023WP/44595/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-consideration of a petitioner's case for promotion to Executive Engineer. The court held that the petition was in-fructuous as the petitioner had filed another writ petition against the same rejection, which was pending before the court. Claims of arbitrariness under Articles 14, 16 and 1 of the Constitution were effectively

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. No further relief was granted. The petitioner was directed to approach the pending petition filed on the same matter.

K.Vykunta Chary Vs Special Chief Secy. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t³³⁰³ I

¶2

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

¶3

IUONDAY, 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: 44595^{OF 2017}

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Vykunta Chary, S/o Somaiah, 54^{years,DeputyExecutiv-e Engineer'} Teldngana Stat-e Education and^{Welfare lnfrastructureDevelopment} Corpoiation, Mahaboobnagar,^{Rl/o lvlahaboobnagar,Telangana}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana represented^{by its Special ChiefSecretary, School} Education (Training) Depahment, Secretariat,^{Hyderabad,Telangana}

¶12

The Telangana State Education^{and WelfarelnfrastructureDevelopment} - Corporatio-n, represented by its Managing^{Directorand Chairman,SCERT} Corhpound, RVM Building, Bashirbagh,^{Hyderabad- 500001}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe^{Constitution of India prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction^{particular{yone in the nature of writ of} Mandamus declaring that the action of Respondents^{in not considering petitioner's} case for^promotion to the category of^{Executive Engineer on the groundthat the} Note (V) of Rule 3 stipulates that filling^{up of Executive Engineers by Graduate} and Non Graduate Engineers^{in the ratio of 3 :1 would apply to the NonGraduate} Deputy Executive Engineers appointed^{prior to issueof G-O.Ms.No.338TRand} RD (Estill) Department, dated 07.11.2009^{is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatoryand} violative of Articles 14 and¹ 6 of the Constitution^{of lndia andfurtherdeclaring that} petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Executive Engineer as^per the^{Sub RulelV} of Rule 1 which specifies that^{the rights of the employees of erstwhileSocial} Welfare Engineering Wing appointed^{against the sanctioned postsin APEWIDC}

¶15

would be protected , rn'r nothing contained in these RLrres srra r a,j,/ersery affect any employee of APE WIDC on the date of comrng into fc rce.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 201 7

¶17

Petition under iection 151 cpc praying that in the circrrn stances stated in the affidavit f red in su pprort of the petition. the High cour: may re prr : sed to direct the Respondents to c.nsider petitioner's case for promotron as E;recrtive Engrneer taking his service re rdered in fuI additionar charge post or t)ep.,,:y Executrve Engrneer from 04.08 r011 into consideratron pending disposar rf the ^/rit petition

¶18

lA NO: 1 oF 2018

¶19

Petition under s er:tion^'151 cpc praying that in tht: cir.cu r ;ta rrr:es stated rn the affidavit firecl rn srpport of the petition, the High court rray be preased to permit the petitioner t ) amend the marn rerief in the writ peti .ion by adding the following words: "and also declaring that memo No. E1111ri3 /TS EwlDcl2olT dt.01.02.2018 issued by the 2"d respondent-Managin,g Director :f TsEWIDC rejecting petitioner Rlpresentation dated 1s.07.2017 is ilegar, arr<r arbitrary,, after the words "viora:ive of Articres 14 and 16 of the constir:uticn of rndia,, and before the words" and further decraring that ram entifle(r ro te promoted as Executive Enginee. as per the Sub Rule lV of Rule 1,,

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M SRIKANTH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR SCHOOL EDUCATIO \

¶22

Counsel for the Respordent No.2: SRI A. YADAVA REDDU. SC

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

T}TE I{ON'BI,E l-ilt T .IU,$'I'I,CE "T.^(}R.EENIVAS RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITiCIig Ha,:i..4-595 of ?017

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This^\trrrit Petitiorr is iik:i serek ing t h t: tbllowing

¶28

rehef: -

¶29

"ro issue a lVii^()rr,L-r or f)ircttit>tt pafltL-LliorlA one in the, ftature q)'Virit of Ma.mdalttLs declonrtg that the a.ction <tf Respoii.en.ts irt r.ai cc,nsidcs"ing peutione.r's case for promotiott to aitrz aatcacilJ a! Lixe t,utiue Enqineer on- th.e ground thqt the N ot(:^(v) o/.Ruk, ,) stipulates that Jilling^{upt;1' E-'cectitiucE,tlqin.:ersb-g C;rcduate: ;.t,tcl Non.} Gro.duate- Engin<:e:r:,, i.,. tltc rati;t o-f ;):: tloitltl cpply to the Non Grctdittte L)eou.!!J .U.r4ctttrt,r: Ilnqineers appointerl pior !.o rssi.rcz i.r-f^1:;.(.). l"Is.1[.r 3.-]3 Tfi iind^R-D (Estt.Iil) DepatTnten!, darcd 17.ⁱ -i.20()t) ts illeqa!, arbitru:ry, discrim-iruttor z,-^{qrtc' r.tic,l.t-,-ti;"'c} of Arlicics 11 and 15 pf the Constiluti,:n. oJ lnclic ctn.d fuiher deciaring thal p'ztitiorer is *n.iitted tt,^{L,e prrlntctt} r.i^tt.; Exccu.tiue Lngirtl:er a-t fi.r! 11.. {irilt [<.tle Il' o! Rule I u.Hch speclies. thst !-hr. i-2.l"ts^{rsj' 1-iir:} e-n1p[otl':t?s^ut erst',t, ltiic=,<)o cial il"'e ij are !)^n.g1 it ee ritl Vl i n 4 ctyt poir ied aga;n st the :;ancli,snrzri po.si:; it Alil;IVID() Lt;ol/|.-l be protected ancl nothin.g cot7lrtirl.':d in. tft.ase .Ilrllt's :;hall aduerselg alfect eny ernployce a.i APEWIDC on- tluz date of coming into force. "

¶30

(

¶31

Heard Sri M. Srikanttr, iearieil counsel for the petitione.f, learned Government Pleader ibl respondent No. 1 and Si A.Yad.an'a Reddy, learneri Ste,urdirrg^Cor-rnsel for respondent No.2.

¶32

Lluring the course of hcaring, learned^{counsel for} the petitioner fairly sullrnits thlet during^{the perrdencyof} the wri1. pei-ition, the responcicnts^{r'ejcr:ted the claim of}

¶33

¶34

the petitior,er for plornotioi-t to thc post crf llxecutive Engineer

¶35

4 . Aggrie,,ed by the said re-jection or ler. -h e lrr:titioner filed Writ I,etition No.SOBS of 2Oi9 and the r;arne is pending bef >re the Division Bench of this Cou rt

¶36

In vier,, of the sarrre, no further aditr di<:ation is requirecl.

¶37

Accord ngly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuor.rs. No costs

¶38

Pendin;J miscellaneous applicatio.es, iI ar5-, shail

¶39

stand closed

¶40

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSrS T,\U_REGTSTRAR Ct3 'SE:CTIC'N OFFICER

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

To,

¶43

One CC to Sri \4. Srikanth, Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

One CC to Sri /. Yadava Reddy, SC[OPUC]

¶45

Two CCs to GI) for School Education, High Court for the litirte,)1'Telangana, at Hyderabad [()LrT] 4. Two CD Copies TJ GJP {

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510912023

ORDER

WP.No.44595 of 2017

,4
tft O'
,/ .t'
i ',' c .;
ll ,-. r\ |':, 'l
i r': "
.;. l) Q5
\ ./ ...1!,

¶51

DISMISSING]'HE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTI.IOUS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶52

\l '.-'.)

K.Vykunta Chary v. Special Chief Secy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vykunta Chary v. Special Chief Secy.

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

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