Disposed

Golla. Kiran Kumar v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC21 Dec 2023WP/9640/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order in Writ Petition No. 9640 of 2022 concerns a petitioner seeking zone allocation in Panchayatraj based on seniority. The Court was informed that the appeal had already been disposed and rejected after an interim order. The Writ Petition was disposed of granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the rejection proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to challenge proceedings dated 13.06.2022.

Golla. Kiran Kumar Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE^{TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEPULLA KARTHIK}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO:9 640 0F 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Golla. Kiran^{Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 34.years'Panchayat Secretary} d,ji"_ir," L.prove"^{ro N"-"'leili3O',ieiriane^ntRro H No4-t26/3/7,Bhavani} fl"g*, K"Oid,^{SriryapetDistrictTelangana-508206}

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State^{of Telangana,Rep by its PrincipalSecretary'. PanchayatRaj and} ' R;;riit;"J"pmen[oepartment, Secretariat' Hyderabad

¶12

2'TheCommissionerofPanchayatrajUrduHallLane,HimayathNagar' Hyderabad, Telangana^State'

¶13

The Distnct^{Collector (Panchayatraj Wing)' Suryapet District}

¶14

The District^{Collector(PanchayatrajWing)'Sangareddy District}

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under^{Article226 of the Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin the affrdavitfiledtherewith' the High Court maybe} pleasedtoissueawritinthenatureofMandamusoranyotherappropriatewrit, orderordirection,bydeclaringtheactionoftherespol.ldentsinnotconsidering the Appeal^{Filed by the Petitioner Dated 'lB-01-2022to consider his caseof the} forallocationtoZone-V-(Yadadri)asperseniorityandonMedicalground'asper G.O.Ms.No.317,^{G A. (SPF-1) Department' dated 06-12-202fis illegal'arbitrary} and u nconstitution^{a I being violative of Articles14' 16 and2'1 of Constitution of} lndia and consequently^{direct the respondents to consider the case of the} petitionerandallocatehimtozone-V.YadadriaSperseniorityandontheground of lnconvenience^{to the Family and Children}

¶17

I.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition Under Section^'15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may^{be pleasedto} direct the respondents to^pass orders on the appeal dated^{l8-01-2022filed by} the^petitioner by allocating the^petitioner to zone-V^{- Yadadri as per seniority,as} per G.O.lvls. No.317, G.A. (SPF-1) Department.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SATYANARAYANA^MOORTHY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES^{- ll}

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.964O of 2022

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Aggrieved by the action of respondents in not considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, dated 18.01.2022, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶26

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Services - II appearing on behalf of respondents No.l to 4 has placed on record a copy of the proceedings uide No.6 I CPR&RE/82lMdll 2022-22, dated 13.06.2022, ald submitted that in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court on 23.02.2022, Lhe respondents have disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner by duly rejecting his case.

¶27

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought liberty to challenge the proceedings, dated t3.06.2022

¶28

In view of the submissions made by the respective counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to

¶29

¶30

the petitioner to challenge the proceedings, dated

¶31

13.06.2022, if he so desires. There sha-ll be no order as to

¶32

costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha,ll stand

¶34

closed'

¶35

/,TRUE COPY'I

¶36

sD'-K'^AMMAJI ASSISTANT FEGISTRAR

¶37

¶38

SECTION^OFFTCER

¶39

To 1. The Princrpal^{Secretary' PanchayatRal a1d-furalDevelopment Department'} '

¶40

'' #;t;i;;i' state of r6iangana^{at Hvderabad} 2. The^{Commi"'on".oi'plnXn"Jo, Lta' Hall LaneHimayath Nagar'}

¶41

-' Hvoeiauao, Telangana state'

¶42

The^{District Correcto''ipli"*[ayatrajWing) Suryapet District} 4. rhe^{District cortecto'r i;il;;;;i;;] w]|!i';s'"f'*ddvDistrict} 5. Two ccs^{to GP} ioR^{Hd;i6ls-lr'His"h couifortneState of relangana at}

¶43

. Bll"it?i^{rti8'J,,r,"r.vanaMoorthv' Advocate [oPUC]}

¶44

Two^{CD CoPies}

SA -. es fY

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11212023

ORDER

WP.No.964O ol²⁰²²

1 BE SY{IS
a
q
3 17 JAN 202[ o

a
DE PA 'f t_

¶51

DTSPOSING OF^{THE W.P}

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶53

1o^cd"a ft\

Golla. Kiran Kumar v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golla. Kiran Kumar v. The State of Telangana and 3 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

A. Madhavi Latha Vs The State of Telangana

J. Sangameshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.R.Vandana Vs The State of Telangana

P.Karuna Sri Vs The State of Telangana

Mallepalli.Madhavi Latha Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Boya. Naresh Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others