Disposed

Potlapally Ravinder v. The District Educational Officer

Telangana HC28 Oct 2024WP/28070/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is a common order disposing of Writ Petitions filed by School Assistants seeking the benefit of notional seniority extended to similarly situated persons. The High Court, noting the parties raised questions requiring specific consideration of representations regarding their merits and selection, directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations dated 17.09.2024 an

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations dated 17.09.2024 and 22.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders.

Potlapally Ravinder Vs The District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

[³³⁰¹ ]

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

¶5

MONDAY,^{THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK}

¶8

WRIT PET^{ITION NOs: 28070 AND28006 OF 2024}

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO:^{28070 0F 2024}

¶10

Between:

¶11

1.^potlaoallv Ravinder,^{s/o.shivalingam,aged About 57 years, School Assistant} (Phvdicsi, Z.P.H. School, Vookondi,^{lMunugodeMandal, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶12

Nanneboina Somaiah,^{S/o. Bixamaiah, aged 53 years, SchoolAssistant} (Maths), tU.P.U.P. School,^{Chilpakuntla, Nuthanakal Mandal, Suryapet} District.

¶13

Ravirala surender,^{s/o. Rangaiah,aged 48 Years, SchoolAssistant (l/aths),} AVRM ZP High School,^{Dacharam, Nereducherla Mandal, Suryapet District.}

¶14

Ramaoiri Srinivasa^{Chary' S/o. Brahmana Chary,aged 50 years, School} AssistSnt (lMaths),^{Z.P.H. School, Nampally, Nampallyfi/andal, Nalgonda} District.

¶15

Gooathi Ramarao,^{S/o. Narayana,aged 49 Years, SchoolAssistant(Maths)'} w.p.U.p. School,^{ChetlaIV{ukundaPuram,Penpahad Mandal,Suryapet} District.

¶16

Sunkari Shankaraiah,^{S/o. Ramulu, aged 56 Years,SchoolAssistant}

¶17

lefrysicat^{Science), Z.P.H.S- Nampa{ly, Nampally Mandal, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶18

Chennoiu Srinivasulu,^{S/o. Narahari, School Assistant (Maths), Z.P.H. School,} Velimin6du, Chityala^{Mandal, Nalgonda District'}

¶19

8 Panthanoi Vanaia. D/o.^{Ramulu, aged 50 years, School Assistant(Physical}

¶20

'^- S,ienaefZ P.H.S., Bollepally, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District. 9. Gundaooni Veeraiah,^{S/o. Buchaiah,aged 48 Years, SchoolAssistant} (Phfi,r? Science), Z.P.H.^{School, Domalapally, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda} District.

¶21

IVandadi Ashok,^{s/o. Mallaiah, agied 4p years, School Ass]stant (fMaths),}

¶22

2.i.A.School, Chandupatla^{(B), Chiwemla Mandal, Suryapet District'}

¶23

...PETITIONERS

¶24

AND

¶25

The District Educational^{Officer, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda'}

¶26

The District Educational^{Officer, Suryapet District,Suryapet'}

¶27

The Director of School^{Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.}

¶28

State of^{Telangana, rep._, by its Principal} Secretary to Government, School Educantion^{Department.Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

Petition under^{Article 226 of the} Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith,} the High Court may be pleased to issue a^{writ, order or direction} more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring^{the impugned action of the respondents in} not extending the benefit of notional seniority^{to the petitioners in the cadre} of School Assistant (lMaths / physical Sciuence) which was extended to similarly situated persons selected and appointed^{pursuant to the same Notification} of DSC 1998 vide Government Memo.No.^{5747lSer.lllA2l2o23,dated15-5-2024} without any^{justification} or reasonable^{cause on the untenableground} that we have not approached the Court of^{law and obtained similarorders as was obtained} by the similarly situated persons as illegal, arbitrary,^{discriminatory,} non-application of mind and violative of Articles^{14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution} of^India and consequenfly hold that the^{petitionersare entitled for notionalseniority} and^promotion in the posts of School Assistants^{(Physical Science / lVaths)} as was^given to similarly situated persons vide Government^Memo.No 5747lSer.lllA2l2023, dated 15-b-2024 in terms of^merit /^{ranking assigned to the petitioners} in the selection process pursuant to DSC 1998^{as per Rule} 33 (b) and 36 of the Telangana State and Subordinate^{Service Rulesby dulyextending} the Judgment of the Honourable Tribunal in O.A.No.^{2237 of 2009, dated} 29-10-2009 to the petitioners.

¶31

IA NO: 10F²⁰²⁴

¶32

Petition under^Section151 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^{to consider the case} of the^petitioners for extending the benefit of^{notional seniorityto the petitioners} in the cadre of school Assistants (Maths / Physical Science)^{as was given} to similarly situated persons selected pursuant to the same¹ 998 DSC Notification vide Government Memo. No. 5747lSer.lllA2l2023,^{daled 15-5-2024,pending} disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶33

Counsel^{for the Petitioners: SRI P'NARASIMHA}

¶34

Counsel^{for the Respondents:GP FOR SERVICES'I}

¶35

WRIT^{PETITON NO: 28006 OF 2024}

¶36

Between:

¶37

D.Kumara^{Swamy, S/o. Narayana,aged About57 years,SchoolAssistant} iMatns;,^{YRM ZP High School, Tangutoor village, Alair Mandal, Yadadri-} Bhongir^District'

¶38

...PETITIONER

¶39

AND

¶40

The District^{EducationalOfficer, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda.}

¶41

The District^{Educational Officer, Yadadri-Bhongir District, Bhongir.}

¶42

The Director^{of School Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.}

¶43

The State^{of Telangana,rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government,} School^{Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.}

¶44

...RESPONDENTS

¶45

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to^{issue a writ, order or direction more in the natureof writ of Mandamus} declaring^{the impugnedaction of the respondents in not extendingthe benefit of} notional^{seniority to the petitioner in the cadreof SchoolAssistant (Maths) which} was extended^{to similarly situated persons selected and appointed pursuantto} the same^{Notification ofDSC 1998 vide Government Memo-No'} 5747lSer.lllA2l2023,^{daled 15-5-2024without any justificationor reasonable} cause on^{the untenable groundthat he haS not approachedthe Courtof law and} obtained^{similar orders as was obtainedby the similarly situated persons as} illegal, arbitrary,^{discriminatory, non-application of mind and violativeof Articles} 14, 16 and^{21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently hold thatthe} petitioner is entitled^{for notional seniorityand promotion jn the postsof School} Assistant^{(Maths)as was given to similarlysituated personsvide Government} Memo.No.^{5747lSer.lllA2l2023,daled 15-5-2024 in terms of merit /ranking} assigned^{to the petitioner in the selection process pursuantto DSC 199B as per} Rule^{33 (b) and 36 of the Telangana State and Subordinate ServiceRules.}

¶46

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶47

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the Highcourt maybe pleased to} direct the respondents^{to considerthe case of the petitionerfor extendingthe} benefit of notional^{seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of SchoolAssistants} (Maths) as was^given to similarly^{situated personsselected pursuantto the same} 1998 DSC Notification^{vide Government Memo.No.5747lSer.lllA2l2023,dated} 15-5-2O24,^{pendingdisposal of the aboveWrit Petition.}

¶48

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI P.NARASIMHA} Counsel for the^{Respondents:GP FORSERVICES'l} The Court made the^{following:COMMON ORDER}

¶49

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA^KARTHIK WRIT PETITION Nos.28O7O AND 2 8()06^{oF 2024}

¶50

COMMON ORDER:

¶51

Since the parties and the issue^{involved in these two} writ petitions are common, they are^{being heard together} and disposed of by way of this^{common order'}

¶52

These two writ petitions,^{under Article 226 of} the Constitution of India, are filed^{seeking to declarethe} action of the respondents in not^{extending the beneht of} notional seniority for promotion in^{the cadre of School} Assistants, which was extended^{to similarly situated} persons selected and appointed pursuant^{to the same} Notification of DSC 1998 uide^{GovernmentMemo} No.5747l Ser .Il I A2 I 2023, dated^{| 5.O5.2o24, withoutany} reasonable cause though the^{petitioners have not filed any} writ petition to implement the^{orders passed in} O.A.No.2237 of 2OOg, as^{arbitrary' illegaland} consequently the petitioners entitled^{for notional seniority} for promotion in the cadre of^{School Assistantsas was} given to similarly situated^{personsby duly extending the}

¶53

<br>

¶54

)

¶55

benelit of Judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2 232 of 2009, dated 29.IO.2OOg as confirmed by this Court.

¶56

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government pleader for Services_I appearing for the respondents.

¶57

Though these two Writ petitions are tiled seeking the aforesaid relief, at the time of hearir.rg, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his argument and prays this Court to consider representations of the petitioners, dated 17.09.2024 and 22.02.2024 and pass approprlate orders.

¶58

Learned Government pleader for Services_I submits that the respondents wifl consider the representations of the petitioners, dated 17.og .2024 and 22.07.2024, in accordance with law.

¶59

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, these two writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider representations of the petitioners, dated 17.O9.2O24 and. 22.02.2024 and, pass appropriate orders

¶60

¶61

¶62

in the light of the orders^{passedby respondent No.luide} proceedings Rc.No.Bl /SPL/NS I^{2022,datedO5.O6.2024,} by extending the relief^{grantedby AndhraPradesh} Administrative Tribunal^{uide its order, dated 29-IO.2OO9'}

¶63

in O.A.No.2237 of 2009,^{which was confirmedby the} Division Bench of this Court^{in W.P.No.36327of 2021,} dated 28.02.2022,^as expeditiously^{as possible, preferably} within a period of eight^{(8) weeks lrom the date of receipt} of a copy of this^{order.Thereshallbe no order as to costs'}

¶64

Miscellaneous^{petitions if any, pending in these two}

¶65

Writ Petitions shall stand^closed.

¶66

--1

¶67

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶68

//TRUE COPYII V

¶69

To,

¶70

SECTION OFFICER

¶71

The District Educational Officer, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda.

¶72

The District Educational Officer, yadadri-Bhongir District, Bhongir.

¶73

The District Educational Officer, Suryapet District, Suryapet.

¶74

The Director of School Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶75

The Principal secretary^ to Government, Schoor Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana'.

¶76

One CC to SRI P.NARASIMHA, Advocate {OPUCI

¶77

Two ccs to GP FoR SERVTCES-|, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶78

Two CD Copies

¶79

I BSR GJP

¶80

(Along with the copy of order dated 28.02.2022, in w.p.No.363 27 of 2021)

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2811012024

I
THt: g7o
(
<br>c)
3sw$M L'
7l
it
t ij
.5

¶85

COMMON^ORDER

¶86

WP.Nos.28070^{and 28006 of 2024}

¶87

DISPOSING OF^{BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS,} WITHOUT COSTS

¶88

OI't.o fu*

¶89

-2

¶90

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶91

AND

¶92

HON,BLE SMT DT.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶93

WRIT PETITION No.36327 of 2O2l

¶94

ORDER: {per Hon'ble Si Jus tice P.Nauee4!ao)

¶95

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief

¶96

"... to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not implementing the ordeis of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.2237 of 2009, dated 29.10.2009 and keeping the orders in cold storage under the guise of non-functioning of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No-2237 of 2009 dated 29.1O.2OO9 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order...."

¶97

Heard Sri P. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services II representing learned Government Pleader for School Education, appearing for the respondents.

¶98

Petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers pursuart to the Selections conducted in the District Selection Committee 1994 selections, in Nalgonda District- Petitioners were aggrieved by determination of inter se seniority of direct recruit Secondary Grade Teachers. According to petitioners, instead of preparing the seniority list based on the over all merit secured by the candidates in the recruitment, the seniority was determined based on the roster points drawR in accordance with Rule 22^(A) of the Telangala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Aggrieved by wrong fixation

¶99

¶100

of seniority, petitioners filed O.A.No.2237 of 2OO9. Petitioners also filed M.A.No.567 of 2OO9 praying to grant interlocutory orders for consideration for promotion.

¶101

Having found prima-facie merit in the said contentions and following the decision of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in Bimlesh tanwar Vs State of Haryara ald Othersr, the Tribunal directed promotion counselling to the post of School Assistants (Maths/Physical Science) to be taken up by taking into account the merit list and the ranking assigned in the recruitment. The O.A., was finally disposed of by order dated 29.LO.2OO9 making the interim order as final order.

¶102

Though petitioners were selected in DSC-1998 selections, in the order of Tribunal d,ated, 6.02.2OO9 in frrst paragraph it was typed as DSC 1994 and in the direction portion it was g/ped as DSC 2OO8. Learned counsel for the petitioners as weli as learned Government Pleader clarified that petitioners are recruited in DSC 1998 recruitment. Therefore, the same is taken on record.

¶103

This writ petition is filed praying to implement the directions of the Tribunal.

¶104

From the material on record, it is also seen that challenging the order of Tribunal in O.A.No.2309 of 2OO9, the respondents filed W.P.No. 12095 of 201O. By order dated. 22.O7.2O 14, the said writ petition was dismissed and the order of Tribunal has become final.

¶105

'^{2oo3 (5) scc604}

¶106

;-:-t'':--.-,::':t*.: !/ '/, ' .,;'

,/.

-4-

On instructions, learned Government pleader, reports that the records in the office of District Educational Officer, Nalgonda were damaged in a Iire accident, therefore, no further action was taken and he seeks reasonable time of three months to comply with the directions of the Tribunal

¶111

In view of the diflicult5r expressed ald the fair submission of learned Government Pleader, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to implement the directions of rribunal in o.A.No.2237 of 2OO9, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶112

P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶113

DT. G.RADHA RANI,J

¶114

28tn Febrtary, 2022 Rds

Potlapally Ravinder v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Potlapally Ravinder 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Arun Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Goreti Arun Kumar Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

J. Kavitha, Vs The State of Telangana

Lukulapu Kamaraju Vs State Oftelangana

Nangari Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Kasarapu Lavanya Vs The State of Telangana