Disposed

G. Preethi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Aug 2023WP/972/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No. 972 of 2019, the Telangana High Court disposed of a petition filed by G. Preethi challenging her non-appointment as Junior Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner had sought reconsideration of her case under the non-creamy layer category after being placed in the creamy layer list. The court directed the second respondent to consider her representation dated 28.12.2018 in terms of the Dist

What did the court decide?

Directive to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2018 in terms of the District Collector's proceedings dated 25.02.2019 and pass appropriate orders within fou

G. Preethi Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s7 )

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 972 OF 2019

¶7

Between

¶8

G. Preethi, D/o. Laxman Rao, (Wo. Sunil Kumar) Age. 28 years, Occ. Un-Employee, R/o.H.No.1-1-648, Housing Board Colony, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

..,RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 an appropriate order or direction more particularly a writ of MANDAMUS by declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as Junior Panchayat Secretary pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the 2nd respondent vide Notification No.2560/CPR & RElB2l2O17 , dated-3'1-8-201 8 even though the petitioner has secured the merit marks than the cut off marks in B.C-D category and comes under non- creamy layer section and inspite of submitting representation as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to rules and also violation of principles of natural justice, equity and fair play and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the^petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Panchayat Secretary^pursuant to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent vide Notification No.2560/CPR &RElB2l2O17, dated.31-8-2018 as

¶15

per marks and ra rk obtained by her in the written e> aminaticn by treating the petitioner as non-r)reamy layer and by considering the representalion submitted by her in the interr st of^justice.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶17

Petition uncer Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci'crimstances stated in the affidavit file.J in support of the petition, the High Court n'ay ce pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the^petitiorler fo-appointment to the post of Jun or Panchayat Secretary pursuant to the notilicalion issued by the 2nd res;rondent vide Notification No.2560/CPRitRE/8212017 , dated.31-8-2018 rs per marks and rank obtained by l)e' ir the written examination by < onsidering the representation submitted hy lhe^petitioner pending disposal cf the above writ petition in the interest of^jur;ti,:e.

¶18

Counsel for the Pt,titioner : SRl. S SURENDER REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Rflspondents: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ

¶20

The Court made tl e following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SMT. ]USTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.972 of 2O19

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Petitioner is aggrieved of non-consideration of her repr6sentation for appointment as Junior Panchayat Secretary pursuant to the recruitment notification, dated 31.08.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent.

¶26

I have heard the submissions of Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents and^perused the record

¶27

Pursuant to the impugned notification, dated 31.08.2018, petitioner has applied to the post of lunior Panchayat Secretary as she possess all the requisite qualifications for the said post. Petitioner has secured total marks of 73.50 and ranked 32081 in the merit list. However in the selection list displayed in December,20LB, the petitioner's name could not find place. It is the case of petitioner that she belongs to BC-D community and on verification of the selection list, she could find that the name of the candidate who secured less marks and rank than her i.e.73 marks with a rank of 32945 was selected. Since the^person belonging to her own community with less nrarks and inFerior rank was selected, she approached the /nd respondent by making representation, dated /

¶28

2 ts/ J W.P.t'to.g72 of 2079

¶29

28.12.2018, rrpon which, she came to kn,rw ti,a- l-er case was considered unJer Creamy Layer category, bLt in far t, ,he produced the certificate along with the application th;rt she l)el()ngs to NonCreamy Layer section. Inspite of the same, the respondents have not passed an,, orders selecting her. Hence tl,is wnt letrtion

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learne(J counsel for the^petitioner has prayed for disposing of the writ petition with a direction to tlre 2nd respondent to consider the repr(:sentation of petitioner, dated 28.12.2018 in terms of the proceeiings, dated 25.02.2079 issued by the District Collector, r\dilaba(i, rvhereby, the 2nd respondenl was directed to consider the applicat.ior of similarly situated candidates like the^petitioner.

¶31

Learned \ssistant Government Pleader CXpre!;s,ld no objection For granting sur:h relief.

¶32

In view oF the above submissions, this writ^petit,ior is disposed oF directing the 2'd respondent to consider the: repr:senl.ation of the petitioner, datt:d 28.12.2018 in terms of the proc,:ecings, dated 25.O2.20t9 issued by the District Collector, Adilaba<i and^pass appropriate or(lers and communicate the same to th€^petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of^-eceirt of a copy of this order. Nc costs.

¶33

JS, l W.P.No.972 of 20t9

¶34

¶35

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/-P. PADMANABHA R DY ASSISTANT REGIS RAR

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

SECTION FICER

¶39

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶40

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶41

One CC to SRl. S SURENDER REDDY, Advocate.[OPUC]

¶42

Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶43

Two CD Copies

¶44

SB .},BS \

¶45

HIGH COUI?T

¶46

DATED:241)812023

¶47

Zt'u, STATA- o
/i.
I
)
4'r SEttB E1;
)) I 'i., -<!1
"'_ /l
',. -lt/
\ ''/ ..:) ;?
-'--! t'-.*r1:-r--;'/
-....

¶48

ORDER

¶49

WP.No.972 of 2019

¶50

DISPOSING;OF THE WRIT PETITIOhI WITHOUT^(;OSTS.

¶51

G) -(,*(p

G. Preethi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Preethi 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

Ravutla Sravanthi Vs The State of Telangana

Ch.Vijaya Bhaskar Vs The Regional Joint Director

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

M D Abdul Ali Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

P. Balram Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

K.Narasimha Vs Sandeep Kumar Sultania, Ias.