Disposed

Abdul Saleem, S/o Abdul Razack, v. The State of Telangana rep.by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC18 Nov 2023WP/6727/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was filed regarding the cancellation of a school promotion. The court disposed of the matter, directing the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's case for promotion subject to seniority and eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Maths) Urdu medium, as and when vacancy arises, subject to seniority and eligibilit

Abdul Saleem, S/o Abdul Razack, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 6727 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

Abdul Saleem, S/o Abdul Razack, Aged 37 years, Occ: S.G.Teacher, M.P.P S.Rudrur village,Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶10

...PET]TIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana rep.by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Buildings, Hyderabad 500022.

¶13

2 The District Educational Officer, Nizama bad, Nizamabad, District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent no.2 in rejecting the case of the Petitioner without applying his mind and^principles by holding^it as^illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the impugned^Order No.Rc.No.4629lB1l2O14 d1.23.4.2016 of 2nd respondent and^{consequently direct} the respondent No.2 to^promote the Petitioner to School Assistant^{(Maths) as was} given to the similarly situated mentioned above with all consequential benefits.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.BALAMUKUNDA^RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR^SERVICESI

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.6727 OF 2017

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking following prayer:_

¶23

" . . . . . .to issue order or direction more partia arly one in

¶24

t.l.re nature 9f Wnt of Mandaruus, deciaring tlrc iction of tle respondent No.2 in rejecting the case olthe petitioner

¶25

tuith.out lpplying his mind nnd principles by holding it as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional aid set aside tlre inryugned Order No.Rc.No.462g/81/2074 d,t.23.4.2016 of 2"'t respondent and consequently direct tlre respondent No. 2 to protnote tlrc petitioner ti Scltool Assistant .(Mnths) ns zuas giaen to the similarly situated ruentioned nbotte ruith all consequential benefti.,,

¶26

Heard Sri.B.Balamukunda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government preader for services-I appearing for respondents

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner through DSC 2001 was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 1g.01.2002 and was working to the utmost satisfaction of the higher authorities. Later, the respondent authorities along with others had promoted the petitioner to the post of School Assistant (Maths) Urdu Medium and posted the petitioner to ZpHS Neela, Renjal Mandal. However,

¶28

¶29

:.r

¶30

the respondent^{authorities cancelled the promotion awarded,on the} ground that^{excess candidates were awarded} promotion^and instructed the^{petitioner to report at} old station^immediately AS Secondary Grade^{Teacher Urdu medium}

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed O.A.No.6923^{of 2015 before the then AndhraPradesh} Administrative^{Tribunal(for short 'the Tribunal'),questionirig'the} action of the^{respondents in not giving the benefits to the petitioner,} which are extended^{to the similarly situatedpersonswho were} appointed^{and promoted to the next higher pos/. After hearing the} matter, the Tribunal^oide order^{dated 74.12.2015had disposedthe} O.A with a direction to^respondents to^dispose of^{the petitioner's} representation^{dated05.11.2015, regardingpromotion to the post of} School Assistant^{as per rules and passappropriate orders withina} period of six weeks^{from the date of receiptof the order.}

¶32

Upon non compliance of the above order, the petitioner filed contempt before^{the Tribunal.In compliance, the respondent No.2} issued speaking order^{zride Rc.No.4629/81/2014 dated23.04.2016,} wherein it is stated^that the^{promotionawarded to the petitioner was}

¶33

Lbrr",

¶34

¶35

cancelled, since it was identifiecl that excess candidates were promoted beyond the consideration and it was further stated that the candidature of the petitioner will be considered to the post of school Assistant (Maths) Urdu medium after arising vacancies. Aggrieved by the speaking order dated 2g.04.2016, the petitioner filed present writ petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that along with the petitioner, one Smt.Taskeen Begum and Syed Masood Ahmed promotion was reverted and when the said persons approached the Tribunal, their case for promotion was considered without any seniority and without any availability of the post. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are not giving similar treatment to the petifioner as given to the above stated Persons^{and prayed} this Court to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Maths) Urdu medium

¶37

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_I submitted that a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.Z wherein it stated that in pursuant to the Government orders

¶38

¶39

passed in the year 2009, the^{respondentauthorities prepared} seniority list and as per^{seniority and eligibility, promotionswere} given to the teachers in^{Governmentand Local Body sector from} categoryJll i.e., SGTs.^{The petitioneralong with otherswas} promoted to the post of School^{Assistant (Maths) Urdu medium' It is} further submitted that after^{completionof promotion counselingfor} all categories, it^{was noticed that excesspromotions wereawarded} for School Assistants including^{SA (Maths) U/M and as per the} decision taken by^{the DistrictEducational Officersconference held} on 27th and 28th^{Feburary 2009, the promotionsto the candidates} identified as excess candidate^{promoted beyond the zone of} consideration were^reverted'

¶40

Learned Assistant^{Government Pleader for Services-Ihad} drawn attention of this^{Court to Para No.6 of the counter,which} reads as under:-

¶41

" no candidate junior to the petitioner^{uas auarded} promotion to the post^{of School Assistant(Maths) U/Min} local body management^so far.^{Tlu candidatureof the} petitionei toill be considered for^{promotion to tlrc post of} Sclnol Assistant^(Matlrc) WM^{oft", nrisingoacatrcies} follouin^{g seniori ty nnd eli gibility."}

¶42

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light

¶44

of the stand taken by the Government in paragraph-6 of the counter, writ petition can be disposed of and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for services-Il does not have any objections for disposal of the writ petition recording the stand of respondent in

¶45

Paragraph-6.

¶46

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and in the light of the stand taken by the respondent in Para No.6 of the counter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Maths) Urdu medium as and when vacancy arises, subject to the seniority and eligibility.

¶47

1'1.. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

Miscellaneous petitioru, if anp pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶49

¶50

SD/-MOHD.SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT"REGI9TRAR //TRUE COPY// secrr}(lorrrcen

¶51

To,

¶52

The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Buildings, State of Telangana, Hyderabad 50OO22.

¶53

The District Educational Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad, District.

¶54

One CC to SRI B.BALAMUKUNDA RAO,.Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the GP FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the State Of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶55

Two CD Copies.

h BSK

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 811112023

ORDER

WP.No.6727 ot 2017

ESl qrS
1t{
t
z
3 2/ oE[ 204
* 'k
P;:.iCli

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @@

¶64

Abdul Saleem, S/o Abdul Razack, v. The State of Telangana rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Saleem, S/o Abdul Razack, v. The State of Telangana rep.by its Principal Secretary

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

S. Harischander, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, Revenue (Regn-I) Dept, Hyd and 4 Ot

Sama Naresh, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Y. Maheshwar, S/o.Late Y. Pentaiah, Vs National Insurance Co. Limited, rep. by its Chairman-cum-

Ahmed Moinuddin Vs Prl.Secretary ( Stamps and Regi) and 2 Others

Boda Krishna, Mahabubabad Dist Vs Prl. Secretary, Irrigation and Cad Dept., Hyd and 2 Others

Md. Shafiuddin, Vs The State of Telangana