Dr. B. Neeraja Prabhakar Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dr. B. Neeraja Prabhakar Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Appeal disposed of by consent of counsel: the learned Single Judge was requested to consider the interim prayer sought by the appellant in W.P.No.9773 of 2025 on the next date of hearing (09.04.2025); the Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits; no costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge should consider the interim prayer sought by the appellant in W.P.No.9773 of 2025 on 09.04.2025, the date on which the writ petition was listed before him.

Court's answer

In view of the consensus arrived at between learned counsel for the parties, this Writ Appeal is disposed of by requesting the learned Single Judge to consider the interim prayer sought for by the appellant in the writ petition on the next date of hearing.

Ratio / Principle

It was made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key takeaways

The Writ Appeal was disposed of without costs.ratio¶37
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA.No.378 of 2025) under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara; judgment per the Acting Chief Justice), preferred by Dr. B. Neeraja Prabhakar against the order dated 02-0,1-2025 (as printed) in W.P.No.9773 of 2025, which concerned a transfer order vide Memo No.1933/Ser.T/A1/2025 dated 24.03.2025 (petitioner at Sl. No. 6) and consequential Memo No.673/Eslt.IA1/2025 dated 24.03.2025. Learned counsel for the parties having agreed, the appeal was disposed of without adjudication of merits: the learned Single Judge was requested to consider the appellant's interim prayer in the writ petition on 09.04.2025, the date of listing; the Court expressly made clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits; no costs were imposed; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

[³⁴⁴⁶ ]

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND ANQ TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAULAND

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

w IT APP ALN :378 0F 20 5

Writ Appeal under clausg^'15 of the Letters Palent pteferred against the Order dated 02-0,1-2025 in W P.No 9773 ot 20?5 an the flle of thg High CoUrt.

Between:

Dr. B. Neeraja Prabhakar, Former VQ, SKLTGHU Wq,^Sri, B,^Prabhakar, Aged 5p^yeafs, Occ. Sqnior Professor^(CAS) and University Head, Dept. of Hprticr,rl.ture, College of Agriculture, Professor Jayashankar Telangana Agricultpral Univerqity, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. R/o, H.Nq.?-4-68/RC/506, Rajas Court Yard, Upparapally, Rajendranagar, Hydprabqd.

..,APP Ef LAN-r/P ETTTIONES

ANP

Tfe State of Telangana, Rep by its Pfingipal $ecfetAry, Fqod and Agriculture Deparlment^{(Universities), Secretariat,} flyderqbaQ,

PJoJe-sspr.Jayashqnkar Telanganp.Agricqltural.Uniyersity, Bajqfdranagar (PJTAU), Hyderabad, Rep. by its Vice-Chancellor,

Ptojes.spr.Jayqshankar Jelangana Aqricyltural Uniyersity, fiajqp{lanagar (FJTAU), Hyderabad, Rep by its Reeiistrar.

4 Dr. D. Rajani, Scientist (Horticulture),'Q-NARE, Rqjendrqpagal, flyderabad.

(B-t iS n For4lal Party, hence not neceqpary)

...8E$PONDENTS

IA NO: oF 2025

Petition under Section¹⁵¹ CPC^praylng that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further steps^pursuant to Transfer order vide Memo.^No. 1933iSer.T/A1 12025 dated 24.03.2025, so far as the Petitioner at Sl. No. 6 concerned and the consequential Memo No. 673lEslt.lA112025 dated 24.03.2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal in the interest of justice.

Counsel for^{the APPellant:SRI B.S.PRASAD,SENIORCOUNSELFOR} M/s. PEARL^{LAW ASSOCIATES} counsel for^{the RespondentNos"t ro 3: sRl sRlX'rt} t="T+ 3Eh="-11"Counsel for the^{Regpondent No'4: *}

The Court made^{the following: JUDGMENT}

I I

/

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

W.A.No.378 of 2o.25

JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Suja1 pdut):

Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel represents

Pearl Law Associates, for the appellant and Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government pleader attached to the office of learned Additiona,l Advocate Genera-l, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Learned counsel for the parties agreed that this Writ Appeal may be disposed of by requesting the learned Single Judge to consider the interim prayer sought for by the appellant in the writ petition on 09.O4.2O25, the day when it is listed before the learned Single Judge.

In view of consensus arrived at, this Writ Appeal is disposed of by requesting the learned Single Judge to consider the interim prayer sought for by the appellant in the writ petition on the next date of hearing. It is made clear

{

2

that this Court has not expressed^{any opinion on merits of}

\

the case. No costs.

Interlocutory applications ,^{if any pending' shall also}

stand closed

SD/-B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR

To

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER C

1 The Principal Secretary, Food and Agriculture^{Department(Universities)'} Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. _

2 rne vice-Crra6;;il";, F;"f;.;;.liv"in%nra,^{Telangana Asricultural} Universitv, Raiendranaoar (PJTAUi. Hvderabad

n rne nJs'i"tijilF;;i;;;;'.'i;;;Jni-nf"it.irnsana^{AsriculturalUniversitv'} Rajendranagar (PJTAU), Hyderabad.

4 Dr' D. Raianl. st,.nti.t lir"itiri,lr.l. c-runn^{e' Rajend rana g{' Hyderabad}

5 o, Jc C lii v)s FEriR'L' LAW;SE oi t,qre s'^{Ad vocate} to f^{y ql}

6 ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court^{for the Stateot lelangana' aI} Hyderabad [OUT]

7 Two CD Copies

PSK. BS s

( (

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0410412025

JUDGMENT

WA.No.378^{ot 2025}

STATE
{ t'E
v'
C)
:,
10 [P$ N6
at
r<br>I t L:.r.i.

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT APPEAL} WITHOUT^COSTS

@q,6 %-'{.\r