Disposed

D. Mary Shobha Rani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Mar 2024WP/33758/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a school teacher challenging the seniority list preparation and promotion procedure. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's pending representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. The Court specifically stated it was not going into the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's pending representation dated 17.10.2023 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.

D. Mary Shobha Rani Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 33758 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

D. Mary Shobha Rani, D/o Joseph, Aged 55 years, Occ ;Head Master Grade-ll, Govt. Hrgh School, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director of School Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 o'( lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that, a) action of the Respondents in not following the procedure contenrplated in Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules while preparing the seniority list of School Assistants while effecting promotions to the post of Head Masters Grade-ll and making promotions is illegal and arbitrary and voilalive of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of lndia b) and further declare that, action of the Respondents in not considering the representation of the Petrtioner dated 17.10.2023 for posting her in the arising vacancy is illegal and arbitrary. c) further declare that, the Respondents shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the Petitioner dated 17.1O.2023.

¶16

I.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the Petitioner dated 17.1O.2023 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES

¶20

The Court made the following ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{PULLA KARTHIK} WRIT PETITIO N No.33758 of2023

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of^the Constitulion of lndia, is

¶24

filed seeking the following praycr

¶25

"...to issue a writ order or direction^{especially one} in the nature

¶26

of Writ of Mandamus declaring that; al action of the Respondents in not^{followingthe procedure} contemplated in Telangana State^{and Subordinate} Scrvice Rules while preparing the seniorit]'^{list of School} Assistants while effecting promotions to the^{post of IleadMastcrs} Grarie-ll and making promotions is illegal and^arbitrar,r and^voilatire of Articlc l4 and l6 of Constitution of^Indra,

¶27

b) and further declare that action of^{the Respondents} in not considering the representation oi the I)etitioner datcd 17.1-O.2023 for^posting her in the arising^{vacarlc-</sup> is illegal and arbitrary. And}

¶28

c) furthcr declarc that thc Respondcnts shall^cortsicicr and pass appropriatc orders on thc reprcs('nlation uf tlr( Pctrlroner dated 17.1o.2023..."

¶29

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counscl appearing for the pctitioner and learned Government Pleader for Sen,iccs, on behallof rcspondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶30

Learncd counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initiallv appointed as Secondary Gradc Teactrr:r and bv virtue of her sc rrioritv and eligibility, she was promoLcd as Sc:ltool Assiskrnt (Bio Scirrnce) on 14.O3.1997 and shc joined dutr on 23.O4.1997 _ fle further submits that the petitioner is a meritorious carrdidate and hcr name rvas slto\r'n aI SI.No-5 in the list of sclcctcd candid:rtcs. Hou.ever, he conlcr]ds that the respondents have prepared a scnioritl. IiSt on the basis

I I 1

of joining dates of thr: emplovr:es, inslc.rd .I prc,aring it on the basrs of merit, and the same is r.ontrarr. to lau... IIe furthcr submirs that while effecting promotions to thc posL of I lcad Masters Grade_II, the respondents have violated Lhe proccdure c<>ntemplated under the Telangana State and Subordinate Scrvir:e Rules, 1996, due to which, the petitioner was allotted ro Govcrnmcnt t{igh School, Huzurabad, Karimnagar Dtstrrct, instcad oi ge tr ing a llott r:d to Government High School, Khammam Disrrrcr. 'l hr.rcfttrc thc per rtio nr:r submitted a representation to the respo.clcrts (). )7.1o.)o23, sccking to transfer her lrom Government t{igh school, ,uzrrrabaci, l)lstl-rct. to Government High School, Khammam Town. Ilotvcvcr, thc said rcprcscntation is pending consideration beforc the responclcnls. J.herc:lor<:, lcarn<:d counsel prays this court to direct the respondcnts (o co.sirrcr. thc rcpresentation of the petitioner dated I 7.1O.2D,3 :rnd 1t:tss alll)ropnatc orders within a reasonable periocl of timc

¶37

4 Learned Government I)lc:rclcr lor Scrr ir:r:s Izrirjr., submits that the respondents will consider the rcpr(.sentation of. the petitioner dated 17.1O.2023 and pass appropriatc orcicrs in acr.ordancc wirh law.

¶38

Having regarcl to thc rival srrltmissiorrs mzrdc bv the respective parties, without Sorng into mcrits 0l lltc r.irsc, thr: Wrjt Petition is disposed of directing thc rcsl;ondcnts rr.r <.onsiclcr thc rcl) rcsclt tation of the petitioner da tecl 17. lo.2()):l ;rrrcl P:tss rrJrPropriaLr: ()r.dcrs thereon, strictly in accordanr:t, rvith Iarr, u rrlrin :r ltr:riorl of srx (0(r) u,t:r:ks from the

¶39

¶40

and^{communicate a coPYthereofto} date^{of receiptof a copy oI this ordcr}

¶41

the Petitroner

¶42

shall^{stand closed'} No Misccllaneous^{petitionspending' il any'}

¶43

I \

¶44

SDl-A.v.s.^PRASAD ASSISTA^{NT REGIST}

cosls

I/TRUE^COPY/I

SECTION^OFFICER

" ""'"

¶49

; fl,$$itl,Itrti;;;g",''i;ffi3*'ffiffi -' Hvderabad' [o!Jl ,r, Rao lriladiraiu, Advocate toPUC] s. O'ne^{CC to Sri Snntv}

¶50

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

DATED:13 t03t2024

ORDER

-,.'.'-;,..:
O n ..^r
,l
/ tt ii;i

WP.No.33758 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

,s
finGpt"
tv
$

D. Mary Shobha Rani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Mary Shobha Rani 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

K.v.Haripriya Vs The District Educational Officer

C.Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Khaja Fasiuddin Vs The Osmania University

B.Dhanamma Vs The Principal Secretary to the State of Telangana

Rudrala Suresh Kumar Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 2 Others

K.Vasudeva Rao Vs The State of Telangana