Vasthupuri Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Vasthupuri Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner granted liberty to challenge the rejection order, if so aggrieved; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed; no order as to costs. The mandamus sought (LDC post under G.O. Ms. No. 98) was not granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondent authorities in not providing the petitioner (and others similarly placed) jobs under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 is illegal and arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution and principles of natural justice, warranting a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the petitioner an LDC post in any Government Department in terms of that G.O.

Court's answer

On the learned Government Pleader's instruction-based submission that, pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the respondents considered the petitioner's representation dated 15.07.2013 and rejected it on the ground that his application was not filed within one year from the date of award, this Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving the petitioner at liberty to challenge the rejection order, if aggrieved. The Court did not adjudicate the legality of the rejection or grant the mandamus sought.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Pulla Karthik, J.), Writ Petition No. 13344 of 2018, decided 17-02-2025: The petitioner, an agriculturist from Nalgonda District, sought a writ of mandamus declaring illegal and arbitrary the respondents' failure to provide him and others jobs under G.O. Ms No.98 dated 15-04-1986 (allegedly violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution), and consequential direction to provide him an LDC post in any Government Department in terms of that G.O. At hearing, the Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stated on instructions that, in pursuance of an interim order granted by the Court, the respondents had considered the petitioner's representation dated 15.07.2013 and rejected it, holding that the petitioner had not filed his application within one year from the date of award. Disposing of the petition on that submission, the Court left the petitioner at liberty to challenge the rejection order, closed miscellaneous petitions, and made no order as to costs.

[³³⁰¹ ]

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

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF^FEARUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE.

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA^KARTHIK

WR lT PETITION NO: 13344 OF 2018

Between:

Vasthupuri Mallaiah, S/o: V.^{Narsimha,Aged about p2^. y9qrs,} Occ. Alriculture, RJo Chintalapalem,^{Peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District.}

...PETITIONER

AND

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by^its Principal^{Secretary lrrigation(Project} Wing) Department, Secretarrat,^Hyderabad.

2 The District Collector, Nalgonda^{District.Nalgonda.}

3- The Engineerⁱⁿ Chief,^{lrrigation Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.}

The Chief Engineer,^{tr,4ajor.IVedium lrrigation,. Minorlnigation, Sriram Sagar} ProjecVsri Sailam Project/ Telugu Ganga^{ProjecUNagarjuna Sagar Project,} Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

The Chief lvlanaging^{Drrector,T.S. GENCO, NagarjunaSagar'TilePondDan} Circle Nagarjuna Sagar. Nalgonda^District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Arltcle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated tn the affrdavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue any wnt, order or direction^{more particularlyone in the nature of} writ of lr,{andamus declaring^{the action of the Respondentauthorities in not} providing the petitioner and others^jobs under G.O.^{Ms. No. 98 which as is illegal,} arbitrary, in violation of^{Articles14,21 and 300-4of the constitutionof lndia, in} violation of principles of natural^{justice and contraryto their own GO Ms No.98} dated 15-04-1986 and^{consequentlydirect the Respondentsto providethe} Petitroner LDC^job in any^{Government Departmentin terms of G.O. Ms No- 98} dated 15-04-1986.

i I

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section^{151 cPCprayingthat in the cir:umstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the Highcourt ma'/ be pleased to direct} the Respondents^{to provide the PetitionerLDCiob in any Go''ernment Department} in lerms of G.o.^{Ms No. 98 dated15-04-1986 pendlngdisp<,sal of the above writ} petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI M. A. K. MUKHEED}

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICEI;-I}

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.5: SMT. A. DEEPTHI,56 ttr)TTSGENCO}

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

\

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PEf,ITION No.13344 OF 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India seeking the following reliel

'...to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandarnus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in not providing the petitioner and others^jobs under G.O.Ms.No.9S which as is iltegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, in violation of principles of natural justice and contraf5r to their own GO Ms No.98 dated 15 04- 1986 and consequently direct the Respondents to providc the Petitioner LDC job in any Government Department in terms of G.O.Ms.No.9S dated 15.04.1986 and to pass...^"

Heard Sri M.A-K. Mukhced, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govcrnment Pleadcr lor Services-l for respondent Nos. 1 to 4

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for rcspondent Nos.1 to 4, on instructions, submits that in pursuance ol interim order granted by this Court on 77.O4.2O1a, the re spondcnrs have considered the representation, dated 15.07.20 I3, submirted by the petitioner, and rejected the samc sraring thrrr rhe petitioner has not hled application within one 1'c:rr fiorn rhr: claLe o[ award.

2

In view of the above made submission, this Wrir petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty t: challenge the

rejeclion order, if so aggrieved.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stancls closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

SD/. T. JAYASREE PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// tD ds."r'o*^oFFtcER

To,

9l

1 The Principal Secretary^{lrrigation(Pro.iectWing)Departrlent'Secretariat' The} State of T6langana,^Hyderabad.

The District Collector,^{Nalgonda District Nalgonda}

2

The Engineer in Chief' Engineer in Chief' Chief'^{lnigationDepartment,Erramanzil' Hyderabad'Hyderabad'}

3 The Engineer in Chief' Engineer in Chief' Chief'^{lnigationDepartment,Erramanzil' Hyderabad'Hyderabad'} 4 The Chief Enoineer. Maior, Medium^{lrrigation,' Minor lrrigation' Sriram Sagar} pit"iJ"usiiSrlil'iip,6j"'"v'r"rrgu oan{a ProjecuNasa iuna^{sasarProject'} Errimanzil, Hyderabad.

The Chief lvlanaqinq Director,^{T.S. GENCO, NagarjunaSagar'TilePond Dan} Circle Nagarjuna-^{Sagar, Nalgonda District'}

6 One CC to Sri^{M. A. K. Mukheed,Advocate [OPUC]}

7 Two CCs to^{GP for Services-|, High Court for the Stat( of Telangana' at} Hyderabad [OUT]

8 One CC to Smt.^{A. Deepthi, SCFORT S' GENCO[OFUC]}

Two CD CoPies

TJ GJP {r

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710212025

ORDER

WP.No.13344 of 2018

r 1HE SIt 14:
o
I
(
16 JUtl 2lE zo
i ,)c SP^Tc , rc0 t

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS

@ #,1-