Allowed

K.v.Haripriya v. The District Educational Officer

Telangana HC12 Mar 2024WP/1813/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition at the admission stage, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner notional seniority and consequential benefits in accordance with a Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to grant notional seniority to the petitioner on par with other DSC-2008 appointees and pass appropriate orders within two months.

K.v.Haripriya Vs The District Educational… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST TELANGANA AT HYDERiJE DOF (special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

r{EgPtY, TWO THOUSAND rHE rwELFrH AND TWENTY DAY OF MARCHFO;R" '

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRI TPETITION NO: 1813 0F 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

l[I,Ii'l3i[1i,8["r##fts.,1):g:x,,x'":.r"?:i,,JoXfl,)i"nilii"i,o#o!fl]fl"i"r" Pandit

¶8

AND

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

The District Educational Officer, Rangareddy District at Hyderabad.

¶11

The District Educational Officer, Medhcal_Matkajigiri District.

¶12

3' The commissioner and Direct of schoor Education, Govt. of r.S. Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telanr Dept., Secrerarirt iifi?rl?Bi.bv its Principal secretary, Shcool Education

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS petition under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue a writ order or orders more particurarry writ of Mandamus decraring the impugned proc.Rc.No.'r1 55otA4rA5r2008 dt.26-11-2019 issued by the 1st respondent not fixing the seniority of the petitione, o;rr; ;r;;; r". less meritorious candidate who were appointed in same DSC_2008 w.e.f. 200912012 and fixing seniority onry w.e.f. 06-08-2016 due to the administrative reasons for no fault of the petitioner is iregar, and set aside the same and conseguently declare that the petitioner is enti ed for seniority on par with persons who were serected or ress meritorious candidates arong with her in pursuance of DSC-2008 Notification w.e.f . 2009/2012 with a, consequentiar benefits, such as, seniority, pay fixation and other attendant benefits etc., for all the purposes.

¶16

I.A.NO:1 OF 2o22

¶17

petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may} be^pleased to direct the respondents^{to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for fixing} notional seniority without^{reference to the impugnedProc.Rc.No.1155OlA4lA5l2O08} dt.2611-2O1g issued^{by the lstrespondentpending disposal of the} above writ^petition.

¶18

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRIM.RAMGOPAL RAO}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES}

¶20

The Court at the^{stage of admissionmade the following ORDER}

¶21

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.1E13 of 2022

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following^prayer:

¶26

I \

¶27

"...to issue a Writ Order or Orders more particularly Writ of Mandarnus declaring the impugned Proc.Rc.No ll55OlA4lA5/2OO8, dt.26.ll.2Or9 issued by the 1"t respondent not fixing the seniority of the petitioner on par with juniors and less meritorious candidate who were appointed in same DSC-2008 w.e.f 2OO9 /2012 and fixing s€niority only w.e.f 06.08.2016 due to the administrative reasons for no fault of the peLitionqr is illegal, and set aside the same and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for seniority on par with persons who were selected or less meritorious caldidates along with her in^pursuance of^DSC2OO8 Notifrcation w.e.t 2OO9 /2012 with a]l consequential benefrts, such as seniority, pay fixation and other attendant benefits etc., for all the purposes and^pass orders may^deem fit^and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶28

Heard Sri M.Ram Gopal Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services appearing on behalf of respondents. With the consent of both^parties, this^{writ petition} is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶29

karned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter is squarely covered by the order of the Division Bench of this^Courtin WP. No.2 1 193 of 20 17 , dated 29.06.20 17. The same is not disputed by the learned Government pleader for Services.

¶30

In view of tlte same, following ttre aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms thereof directing tJ:re respondents to extend the^benefit of notional seniority to the petitioner on par with^persons who^were selected

¶31

¶32

along with her in pursuance of DSC-2OO8 w.e.f.2OO9/2O12 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There sha.ll be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha-ll stand closed.

¶34

SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT^REGIS AR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The District Educational^{Officer, Rangareddy Districl at Hyderabad'} 2. iil; Di;iriai Educational^{officer, Medhcal-Malkajigiri District'} 3. iii; c;;;i;i"ner^{and oirect ot School Educati&, Govt'of r's Hvderabad'} 4. iii" Fri.i.ipris""oir.y,^{School Education Dept.,Secretariat'Stateof} Telangana,^HYderabad.

¶39

ii," Ctti" dP^{For Services,High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶40

oilL cC to Sri^{M.RamgopalRao,Advocate IOPUCI} 7. Two CD CoPies

SA GJP {^.k

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210312024

1HE ST4 14:
(
e
,o
o
19 ilAB 2U{ o
* o6.SPATCH g-0 *

ORDER

WP.No.1813 of 2022

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS.

K.v.Haripriya v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Haripriya v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chatari Nagendram Vs The State of Telangana

Savithri Karre Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddam Nagesh Vs State of Telangana

C.Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Khaja Fasiuddin Vs The Osmania University

Naresh Samala, Vs The State of Telangana