Disposed

Vijayalakshrni Baroorgudupally v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Mar 2024WP/11952/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A government teacher challenged her allotment to the new Medak local cadre without considering her spouse-ground request and seniority. The writ petition was pending since 2022 with interim orders directing disposal of her appeal/representation; the court disposed it with time-bound directions.

What did the court decide?

Time-bound directions to dispose of/communicate decision on petitioner's appeal or representation; liberty to pursue legal remedies if grievance unredressed.

Vijayalakshrni Baroorgudupally Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 11952 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vijayalakshrni Baroorg ud upa lly, W/o. Sanieev Nulen Occ. Govt Teacher, Emp.l.D.1840123, Designation. School Assistant - English ZPHS (G) Shankarampet (A) Mandal, Shankarampet-A. Erstwhile . Medak Allotted New Local Cadre, Medak. Date of Appeal. 2411212021

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

The District Educational Officer, Sangareddy District.

¶14

The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Adicle 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 any order or direction writ or writs more particularly on in the nature of WRIT OF MANDATVIUS declaring the allotment Proc. No. ES/SC/ME/MEDA/SCAS /0353 Date. 2311212021 of Respondent No.2, according to G.O.[Vls. No. 317 of GA(SPF) Dept. Dated 0611212021 without considering the Memo No.'1655|SPF-112O21-O on 2211212021 on.spouse ground to the petitioner request location or the considering the seniority, is illegal, arbitrary and also violation of the principles of natural^justice in the interest of^justice and equity.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

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 Respondents No.2 to allot the petitioner in Sangreddy area on spouse ground as per lvlemo No.1655/SPF-112021-6 on 2211212021, by passing order on appeal Dt.2411212O21 and also on the representation made by the petitioner to the respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRUDHVI RAJ MUDUNURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

1 I

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶22

WRIT PETITION No. 11952 of 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Court on 08.03.2O22 granLed interim^{orders directing} the respondent authorities to dispose^{of theappeal(s)/} re presentation (s) filed by the^{petitioner(s).}

¶25

2l ht spite of the matter being adjourned from time to time for ascertaining the latest instructions in the matter, either the^learned counsel for the petitioner(s) or the learned Government^Pleaderare unable to report the instructions to the Court.

¶26

Having regard to the fact that the matter is^pending since two years and the interim orders were already passed in lavour of the petitioner(s), this Court is of the considered view that instead of the keeping the Writ Pe tition pending, it can be disposed of with the following directions:

¶27

a) If the respondent authorities have not yet disposed of the appeal(s)/ representation(s) ltled by the petitioner/ s in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on Oa.O3.2022, they shall dispose of the same within a period of six weeks lrom today, invariably, and communicate a copy of the order to the petitioner(s) within a period of two weeks thereof;

¶28

)

¶29

b) In case the appeal(s)/^{representation(s)is/are already} disposed of, the respondent^{authorities shall communicate} a copy of the order(s) to the^{petitioner(s)within a period of} two weeks from today; and

¶30

c) lf the grievance of the^{petitioner(s) is not yet redressed,} he/she/they is/are at liberty^{to pursue the remedies} available under the law.

¶31

4l With the above directions, the^{Writ Petitionis disposedof}

¶32

Miscellaneous petitions^pending, if^{any, shall stand closed}

¶33

There shall be no order as to^costs

¶34

//TRUE COPYII

¶35

SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMA R ASSISTANT REGIST*A R ,r/\U

¶36

SECTION OFFICER

¶37

¶38

1 The Principal Secretary, Telangana^{Education Department, Telangana} Secretariat, Hyderabad,^{State of Telangana.} _.

¶39

2 The District Educational Officer,^{Sangareddy Diskict.}

¶40

3 The District Collector, Sanga^{Reddy District.} 4 One CC to SRI PRUDHVI^{RAJ IUUDUNURI, Advocate} [OPUC] 5 iwo CCs to GP FOR SCHOOL^{EDUCATION, High Court for the State of} Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶41

6 Two CD Copies

PSK.

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010312024

ORDER

WP.No.11952 of 2022

rrE
:..;i.-<br>/(r,o ' '.,r. .3
/i- e
) Pl
I
[ 5 Jilt,l ?UI
]<br>*
e\l
. --

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶51

b<br>\v
5 u<br>sl
4v

Vijayalakshrni Baroorgudupally v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayalakshrni Baroorgudupally 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanda Annapurna Vs The State of Telangana

M.Parameshwari Vs State of Telangana

G. Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana

M. Devaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Kota Anitha Vs The District Educational Officer

B. Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana