Disposed

Smt.Syed Fahmida Parveen v. The District Educational Officer

Telangana HC11 Feb 2025WP/19156/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning posting orders and transfer counseling, the High Court permitted the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents to redress her grievance within one week. The court directed the respondents to consider such representation within four weeks and pass appropriate court orders. The petition was disposed of without merits analysis.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted for the petitioner to make a fresh representation; respondents directed to consider it within four weeks and pass orders.

Smt.Syed Fahmida Parveen Vs The District… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

,[3301]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANAATHYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEPULLA KARTHIK}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 19156^{OF 2018}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt.Sved Fahmida Parveen,^{D/o Md.Abul Sattar, agedabout5-3} .^years, Slntoi niti.iunt^{(Sociat Studies), (workingas S.A-Maths)'ql.9out GirlsHish} School, Urdu lMediam,lVlanyamchelka,^{Nalgonda, Nalgonda Dist'}

...PETITIONER

AND

The District Educational^{Officer, Nalgonda, NalgondaDist}

¶14

2 The Director of School^{Education,Govt.ofTelangana,at Hyderabad'}

¶15

3 The State of Telangana,^{Represented by lts Principal Secretary,School} EducationDept'Secretariat^{Hyderabad'Respondents}

¶16

...RESpoNDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article^{226 of lhe constitutionof 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 more particularlyonein the natureof} writ of lVandamus directing^{the first respondentto issue postingorders to the} petitioner as a school Assistant^{(social studies) (Urdu tt/edium)in Government} Management schools^{as per the Memo.No.4533lser.lllA1l2o18 d1.05.06.2018} and consequential^{commissionersMemo. Rc. No.184B/Trans/Ser.lV-2l2015 dt.} 05-06-2018 as the^{petitioner is working against post of School Assistant(lvlaths)} instead of Social studies^{including the vacancy at G.G.H.S (UMl) Manyamchelka,} Nalgonda,withallconsequentialbenefitsbyholdingtheactionofthe respondents in forcing^{the petitioner to participate in the ensuingtransfer} counseling by taking^{off line applicationthough the petitioneris not completed} two^years of service^{as on 31-05-20'18 is clearly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory} and unjust.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶19

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may^{be pleasedto} direct the lst respondent to issue^posting orders^to the^{petitioner as a School} Assistant (Social Studies)^(Urdu Medium) in Government^{l,4anagementSchools} as per thelVlemo.No.4533/Ser.ll/A112018 d1.05.06.2018 and^{consequential} Commissioners Memo. Rc. No.1848/Tra^{ns/Ser.lV.2/201 5 d1.05-06-20'18as the} petitioner is working against post of School Assistant (lVaths) instead of Social Studies including the vacancy at G.G.H.S^{(UIr/) It/anyamchelka,Nalgonda,} before ensuing transfer counseling,^{pending disposalof the above Writpetition.}

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶21

Between:

¶22

The District Educational Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda^Dist.

¶23

The Director of School Education, Govt. ofTelangana, at Hyderabad.

¶24

The State of Telangana, Represented by lts^{PrincipalSecretary, School} Education Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Respondents.

¶25

...PETITIONERS

¶26

AND

¶27

Smt.Syed Fahmida Parveen, D/o lVld.Abul Sattar, aged about^{53 years,} School Assistant (Social Studies),^(working as S.A-tr/aths), at Govt. Girls High School, Urdu [t/ediam,ft/anyamchelka, Nalgonda, Nalgonda^Dist.

¶28

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶29

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to vacate the interim orders dated. 12.06.2018 in l.A.no. 0112018 in W.p.no. 19156 of 2018 and dismiss the writ^petition.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.RAMGOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHTK

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.19156 OF 2O18

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition is filed under Articie 226 of

¶35

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶36

"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue posting orders to the petitioner as a School Assistant (Social Studies) (Urdu Medium) in Government Management Schools as per the Memo.No.4533/ Ser.ll/A 1/ 2018 dt.05.06.2018 and consequential, Commissioner's Memo.Rc.No. 1848/Trans/Ser.lV-2/2015 dt.05.06.20lB as the petitioner is workirlg "against" post of School Assistant (Maths) instead of Social Studies including the vacancy at G.G.H.S (UM) Manyamchelka, Nalgonda, with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in forcing the petitioner to participate in the ensuing transfer counseling by taking off line application though the petitioner is not completed two years of service as on 3 I -05-2O 18 is clearly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust and to pass...-

¶37

Heard Sri M.Ram Gopal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services I for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶38

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have complied u,ith the interim order, dated 12.06.2018 passed by this Court. However, learned counsel submits that the said interim order r,r,as complied a-fter two months of the date of the said order and for the said two months, the respondents have not paid the salary to the petitioner. Therefore, learned

¶39

¶40

PK,J

¶41

counsel prays this Court to permit the petitioner to make fresh representation before the respondents redressing her grievance ancl the respondents may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within a reasonable period of time.

¶42

l,earned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that on receipt of representation from the^petitioner, the respondents will consider the same and^{pass appropriate} orders, in accordance with^law.

¶43

Having regard to the submissions^{made by iearned} counsel for the respective^{parties and withoutgoing into the} merits of the case, this Writ^{Petitionis disposedof permitting} the petitioner to make^{fresh representationbefore the} respondents redressing her^{grievance within a period of one} (1) week from the date of receipt^{of a copy of this order' Upon} receipt of such representation,^{the respondents are directedto} consider the same and^{pass appropriateorders, strictlyin} accordance with law,^{as expeditiously as possible, preferably} within a period of four^{(4) weeks therefrom and communicate} a copy thereof to the Petitioner.

Pli,., Wp 19156 2018

I I

I I i

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶50

Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

¶51

costs.

¶52

SD/- T. VIJAY KUMAR SISTANT REGISTRAR

/iTRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

t. The District Educational Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Dist.

¶57

The Director of School Education, Govt. of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶58

J. The Principal Secretary, School Education Dept, Secretariat,^Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶59

One CC to SRI M.RAII/GOPAL RAO, Advocate IOPUC]

¶60

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶61

b. Two CD Copies

¶62

BSR GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110212025

ORDER

,1t Sl : la
J (.1
t
c
vZ
i) 1$ iPH ?[?5 C)
4
"l
.-,,.
.'i.

¶68

WP.No.19156 of 2018

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

Y\ 1

Smt.Syed Fahmida Parveen v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Syed Fahmida Parveen 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Naresh Kumar Vs The Director of School Education

Banavath Jabbar Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. K. Madhuri Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

M.Jayanthi Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Maloth Lalu, Vs The State of Telanagana

Daniel Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others