Disposed

K.Sravanthi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Mar 2024WP/5961/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Junior Assistant allotted to Nagarkurnool District despite preference for Mahabubnagar under the 100% hearing-impaired category challenged as contrary to Guideline 22 of G.O.Ms.No.317. With consent at admission stage, the court directed respondents to consider her appeal and pass orders within four weeks, staying the impugned proceedings meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's appeal dated 01.03.2024 under Guideline 22 of G.O.Ms.No.317 within four weeks; impugned allotment proceedings not to be given effect till then; no costs.

K.Sravanthi Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5961 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.Sravanthi, D/o K.Bala Raju, Aged about 30^years, Occ. Junior Assistant,^District Hospital, Nagarkurnool, Nagarkurnool District,^Telangana.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,^General Administration SPFI Department, Secretariat,^{Hyderabad, Telangana.}

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,^Health, medical^and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat,^{Hyderabad, Telangana.}

¶14

The Commissioner of Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Government^{of Telanagana,} 2nd Floor DME Building, DM and HS Campus, Opp. Koti Women's^College Road, Kutbi Guda, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad,^{Telangana 500095}

¶15

The District Collector, Mahabutilagar District, Mahabubnagar,^Telanagana.

¶16

The Superintendent, District Head Quarters Hospital,^{Mahabubnagar District,} Mahabubnagar,Telanagana.

¶17

..RESPONOENTS

¶18

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^{Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned^proceedings in Rc.No.53/E1l SDHH/MaNR/2o23 Dated 2342-2024 of the sth^{respondentin allottingthe} petitioner to Nagarkurnool District instead of Mahabubnagar District as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to Paras^{4,7 and} I of the^{Telangana Public} Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and^Regu.lation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018, and GuUeline 22 of G.O.M.s.No.317 GENEML DMINISTRATION (SPF-|) DEPARTMENT Dated.06. 12.2021 and set aside the same and

¶19

¶20

consequenfly direct the respondents to aflot the petitioner to Mahabubnagar District under 100 percentage Hearing lmpaired preferential category.

¶21

IA NO: 1 oF 2024

¶22

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend impugned proceedings in Rc.No.53/EuSDHH/MBNR/2023 Dated 23-022024 of the 5th respondent.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.VENKATA KRISHNATAH

¶24

counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FoR GENERAL AoMrNrsrRATroN

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent l,lo.2,4to5 : cp FOR HM & FW DEPT.

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Alo.3 : SRI S.VIJAyA PRASHANTH,

¶27

SC FOR VAIDYAVIDHANA PARISHAD

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.5961 of 20124

¶30

ORDE R:

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

¶32

.to issue a writ. order- or a direction, more particula-rly one ' Ji}".i_r! "tiJ'i_prg.r.a in the nature of writ of -Ma"a._ r"proceedings in Rc. No. 53 / E I / SDH H/ M BNR/, ois,'Z^i.i zs.oz.zOZc :1^{th.e 5'n respondentin aitotting'the} p.ii,i."",. ?"i"i"rr.r-*f District insread of Mahabunaga"r D1"Lf;;' lilel'i:B *uit."ry, discriminatory and contrarv to Fara" 4, I and Z oi?i3 r.rung.r,. Public Employment lOrganLtion of acat Calres a]nO n"eeur.tio., of Direct Recruitment) order.201.8 and G,td.lt".;;;;.o.",fi".^o.s r r, General Administration (SpF_t) o.pu.t-..,i,^{-oraj'oi.I'j.!oz} r ^ra set aside the same and consequently ai..ct'ttre iespiia"-rr,",o "ffo, the petitioner to Mahabubnagar District ,rra.i iOO4 u.".i.rg lmpai-red- preferentiar category_and to pass """t oia"."Ir"orders as the this case."Hontrle Court may deim fit .rd p;rt. il;; ii".r],o"rur"." or

¶33

Heard Sri G.Venkata Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for respondent Nos.l, 2 and 4 and Sri S.Vijaya prashanth, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 5. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected to the post o[ Junior Assistant, which is a District Cadre post and allotted her to the District Coordinator of Hospital Services, Mahabubnagar. Accordingly, the petitioner has joined on 26.02.2O14. While so, in pursuance of the presidential Order, 2Olg, the Government of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.3 17, General Administration (SpF_I)

¶35

¶36

¶37

Department,^{dated 06.12'2O21, formulating the guidelines for allotment} of persons^{holding the posts in the existing local cadres to the new local} cadres organized^{in pursuance of the Presidential Order' 2018'As per} Guideline^{No.22 of G.O'Ms'No'317, dated 06'12'2021'preferences} given by the^{specialcategoriesof employees with disability of 7O%:oor} more as certified^{by a competentauthority as per Personswith} Disabilities^{(P.W.D.) (Equal opportunities' protection of rights and full} participation) Act,^{1995 maybe accommodatedas far as practicable'} regardless of^{seniority.As per the above guideline' the petitionerhas} submitted a^{preference form on 13'12'2021 specificallyindicating her} First^{preferencefor her allotment to Mahabubnagar Districtunder} special category^{of lOO%hearing handicapped (HH)' 2'd preferenceto} Narayanapet,^{3rd preference to Ranga Reddy etc} '^{But ignoring the same'} the petitioner^{was allotted toNagarkurnoolDistrictbythe} 5e respondent^{vide proceedings Rc'No'53/El/ SDHH/MBNR/2023'} dated 23.02.2024.^{nggrieved by the same'the petitioner hasfiled} appeal to^{the 4tr' respondenton O 1'03'2024 and the same has been} pending with^{ttre 3'd respondent'Therefore' learned counsel prays this} Court to^{direct the2nd and 3'd respondent toconsiderthe} representation/appeal^{of the petitioner dated Ol 'O3 '2024made under} G.o.Ms.No.317,^{dated 06.12.202:I andpass appropriate ordersin terms} of guideline^{No'22 of G'O'Ms'No'317'dated 06'12'2021'}

¶38

-7

¶39

Learned Standing Counsel and learned Government pleader for respondents respectively submits that the respondents will consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation/appeal of the petitioner dated 0l .O3.2O24 in accordance with law.

¶40

In view of the submissions made by the respective parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2,d and the 3rd respondent to consider the representation/appeal of the petitioner, dated 01.o3.2024 and pass appropriate orders in terms of guideline No.22 of G.O.Ms.No.3l7, dated Cl6.12.2021, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the respondents are directed not to give effect to the impugned proceedings Rc.No.s3/EtlSDHH/MBNR /2023, d,ated 23.O2.2O24. There shalt be no order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

sd/- R. KARITHIK AN //TRUE COPY// ASSIST G

¶43

To, 1

¶44

2 3 4. 5. 6. 7 I 9 10

HIGH COURT

PK,J

DATED:0610312024

CC TODAY

1 HE STAT G-
(
q
z
o
0 7 ilAH 202[ c)
!1
* D 1..p7;16,1{

¶50

ORDER

¶51

WP.No.5961 ol2O24

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

,1e\0<br>

K.Sravanthi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sravanthi 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 Narayana Reddy Vs Tsrtc

Daravath Jyoti Vs The State of Telangana

Seethavar Kishan Vs The State of Telangana

A. Kranthi Ramana Vs State of Telangana

G.Raju Vs The State of Telangana

P.Suri Babu Vs The Commissioner and Director of Sericulture