Dismissed

Smt. Dr. D. Jyothsna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2025WP/21978/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer order of an English lecturer from an aided college to a government college due to economic weakness. The court held the transfer was administrative and justified, not arbitrary, allowing mid-year placement. Included incidental orders to vacate a stay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. The interim stay orders were vacated and miscellaneous applications stood closed.

Smt. Dr. D. Jyothsna Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ I

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

THURSDAY, THE^{TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO: 21978 0F 2021}

¶7

Between: Smt. Dr. D.^{Jyothsna' W/o' K'. V.1i9Y Xumar' Aoed about 50 Years'} occ. Associate^prores$r Ftat No. 10-3,^{sainath Apartments,} Road No.4, vioVanagii"Colonv' "i'Erlg-lGr','f,i6.^{S"yap"t'Suryapet District( Nalgonda )}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of^{Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary' Higher Education} Department,^{Secretariat Buildings'HyderaDao'}

¶11

The Commissioner^{of Collegiate Education, TelanganaState' Hyderabad}

¶12

z 3 The secretary^{-cum correspondent, SV College suryapet, suryapet District(} Nalgonda )

¶13

4 The Princioal. Sri Venkateshwara^{College,Amarawadi Nagar' Suryapet'} Suryapet District^{( Nalgonda} )

¶14

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Article226 of lhe Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{st)teOln the affidavitfiled therewith' the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an^{appropriate writ' order or direction moreparticularly onein the} nature of wRlT^{OF Mandamusdeclaring the transfer orderof the 2nd respondent} inFileNo.CCE-ADMN/1/2020-RDdatedoT.og.202lintransferringthepetitioner from sri Venliaieshwara^{collegeto GDC(W) Nalgonda is illegal, arbitrarycontrary} to the service^{regulations, GovernmentOrders and as well as the fundamental} rightsguaranteedundertheconstitutionoflndiasetasidethesameconsequently direct the respondents^{to continue the petitioner as a English Lecturer at Sri} VenkateshwaraCollegeSuryapet,suryapetDistrict(Nalgonda).

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 202'

¶17

Petition un ler llection^'l 51 cPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed n srpport of the wRlr petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respor dents to continue the petitioner as a English Lecturer at sri Venkateshwara^()olleqe suryapet, Suryapet District. { Nalgonda) by suspending the proceedings n F:ile No. GGE-ADMN/1i2020-RD dated 07/09/2:021 of t!.te 2"d respondent forthv ith pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Between:

¶20

The Secretrrry -Oum Correspondent, SV College Suryapet, Suryapet District ( Nalgonda )

¶21

and

¶22

...vacate stay petitioner / re:;pondent no.3

¶23

1 Smt. ^Dr D .lyothsna, W/g K Vijay Kumar, Aged ab,rut 50 years, Ucc. Asso,:iato Professor of Eng_lish, Rl/o. Flat No. 103, Sainath Apartments, Road No.4 Vid,/anagarColony,Suryapet, Suryapet Disirict( Ntlgo;;; j^---'

¶24

.,.WRIT PETITIONERYFIESPONDENT

¶25

The Stab <,f Te angana, Egp pV its principal Secretary, Higher Education Departmer t. S ecreta riat Buiid in-gs, Hyderibad.

¶26

The Comm ssiorer of Collegiate Education, Telangana State, llyderabad.

¶27

The Princ:if al, lSri Venkateshwara College, Amarawadi Nagar, tjuryapet,Suryapet D strict ( Nalgonda )

¶28

...RESPONDENTS/RE:SpONDENTS

¶29

Petition under {1,-.ction 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl n support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted by this Hon'ble court on og-og-2021 in l.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No 21()1'8 of 2021 .

¶30

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶31

Between:

¶32

Ili,llli5ft i,.,?i' KZl53t""o'iy"ra correse' Amarawad i N as a r' s u rya pet'

¶33

AND

¶34

..,PETITIONER

¶35

l.TheStateofTelangana,RepbyitsPrincipalsecretary,HigherEducation Department, Secretariat^{Buildings, Hyderabad.}

¶36

The commissioner^{of collegiateEducation, Telanganastate, Hyderabad.}

¶37

The secretary^{-cumcorrespondent, sV college suryapet, suryapetDistrict(} Nalgonda )

¶38

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶39

Dr. D. Jyothsna,^W/o. {.^{V',t,y-.Kumar,} .^{Aoed about 50 Years'} occ. Associate Protessoi'of 'engtisfr,'nio. Fi,i itro ios, S9iLa!n Aparfments' noio No.+, Vidyanagar^{dotony,Sury'apet,Suryapet Diskict( Nalgonda)}

¶40

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT^PETITIONER

¶41

Petition under section^{'151 CPC prayingthat in the crrcumstancesstatedin} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Courtmay be pleasedto} vacate the interim^{orders granted by this Hon',blecourt on 0s10912021 in l.A.No.1} of 2021ⁱⁿ W.P.No.21978^{of 2021}

¶42

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI RAMESHCHILLA}

¶43

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.1& 2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION}

¶44

Counsel for the^{Respondent No3 & .4: SRI'T' SRIKANTH REDDY}

¶45

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶46

II|ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 2L97a OF 202L

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

Tbis Writ Petition is frled challengi:ng the.

¶49

re-deplo1,n Lent proceedings d,ated 07.09.2021 issued by the !"a responden: - Commissioner of Collegiate Education. 2. Pe,:itioner was appointed as English I-ecture,r in the 4s respcrn Cenl: college in aided post uide proceedingrs dated 19.03.19,1!r. While she was serving the 4th responclent college, the 2"d respondent issued impugned proceedings trarl sfe'rring her from tt e said college to GDC (Women), Nalgonda.

¶50

It is stated that prior thereto, petitioner. made representat ion dated 13.11.2020 when she was transfcrred to Nalgonda; taking the same into consideration, she was repatriated to parent college uide proceedings dated 23.11.2O2O, however, v'itbin one year, she was^-again transferrerl from Suryapet tc Nalgonda. The grievance of petitioner is that the 2nd respondent wiriout application of mind and contrary to the senioritSr Jist, transferred her to Nalgonda. According to her, as per the pc,li:y and regulation, juniors should be transferred and petitioner i; in the avenue of promotion of principal, hence, contends 1.hat it is contrarJr to the service regulations.

¶51

¶52

By order dated 09.O9.202 1, this Court, while issuing notice before admission, granted interim direction to the respondents to continue petitioner as Engligh Lecturer at the 4ft respondent college, duly suspending the impugned proceedings.4. In the counter-affrdavit filed on behalf of Respondents I and 2, it is stated that pursuant to the interim direction, the l"t respondent issued orders to the 3rd respondent to admit petitioner to duty immediately ald accordingly, she joined dufy. It is stated that redeployment of surplus identified lecturers was done based on the guidelines issued by the Government rnde G.O.Ms.No. 890, Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 02.O8.19961' further government uide G.O.Ms.No. 33, dated 24.O3.2OO5 issued revised orders prescribing minimum economic strength in a-ll aided degree colleges and implement uniformity in the minimum economic strength norms for each class. It^-is further stated that government also authorised the 2"d respondent to extend his discretionaqr powers in regard to minimum students strength to the private degree colleges situated in tribal and backward areas, hence, instructions were issued to all the Correspondents of Aided Degree & Oriental Colleges in the State that they should take necessary steps to maintain minimum strength. If

¶53

¶54

the snrcent strength fall below the minimum . strength prescriber l, th.ey should intimate the same to the Director and necessar] steps should be taken to close down the ttnt:conomic .aided^{sec -iorLs; with the permission of the Director of Oollegiate} Educatior . so as to avoid financia-l burden on payment of salaries t r th,: staff without warralted workload. In tl, is case, the depar lment in English has fallen drastically prompting this responder Lt ro shift the surplus lecLurers to anothe:r needy college. I is also contended that redeployment ordt:rs were issued ba rin13 on the workload in the parent institution and this is only a tenporary measure to avoid wastage of gor,,ernment money anl eflicient usage of services of aided lecturers who are drawing salary from government funds without suffrcient workload.

¶55

F'.espondents 3 and 4 filed counter den'ring the contentior . oi petitioner that she discharged the dut ies with utmost s atisf action of the superiors. It is stated that Commissi rner of Collegiate Education in 2016 invited proposals from the eligible lecturers for award of Career Advattcement Scheme fcr u.hich, petitioner also submitted Application to the Regional . oint Director of Collegiate Education, Waranl;a1, who on 18.O,{.2O1^'2, issued proceedings informing that p,:titioner

¶56

¶57

submitted false certifrcate. When called for, petitioner also admitted that few fake certificates submitted for Career Advancement Scheme

¶58

The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education,. Warangal, on 1O.07.2O17 issued copy of proceedings dated O5.O7 .2017 reprimanding petitioner and returned proposals submitted by her under AGP 9000 Scheme. As regards the impugned proceedings, it is stated that Sri Venkateswara College, Suryapet is a private college and it is managed by Osmania Graduates' Association and Exhibition Society, Hyderabad. In the college, some of the teaching and nonteactring posts were admitted to grant in aid scheme of State of Telangana; post of Lecturer in English is one of such post which was admitted to grant-in-aid Scheme and that there is no procedure that one of the staff members who is working in a private management college be tralsfeired to a college run by government.

¶59

Ot 27.O7.2018, petitioner submitted an Application seeking T.{o Objection Certifrcate' for redeployment to Government College on the ground that her husbald was working as Deputy Engineer at that time at Marriguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is stated, that application of petitioner was

¶60

¶61

placed bcfore the governing body of the college^wh ere it is resolved .o r€:quest the Commissioner of Collegiate^Education that as t re student's strength in the aided courses^{has been} decreasrnl year by year and that the existing work- load of Engiish I )epartment would be distributed by unaide<l faculty members to handle them; accordingly, Sri Venkrlteswara College, i;uryapet requested the Commissioner of Oollegiate Educatior. tc, redeploy petitioner along with her post from Sri Venkates'rzara College. Accordingly,'No Objection Certificate' was issued to petitioner on 03.06.2019 as reque sted by petitioner an<l a letter that was addressed by the Siecretar5r dated 2lj. )6.2,019 to the 2"d respondent who issued proceedings dated 0li.i)9.12,119 redeployrng petitioner by relieving hel services at the ll.^I respondent college and posting her as /tssistant Professor in Engiish to Government degree college, Nalgonda.

¶62

The 2nd respondent vide proceedings, d.ated 23.LL.2O2O repatriated petitioner without taking consent of the responder.t cc,llege. After relieving petitioner, the colle,ge made internal a ljustments by distribution of workload in the English Departme lt in between the unaided faculty memtrers; on 24.11.2O2O, the 3.d respondent requested the 2"d respondent to cancel thr repatriation orders of petitioner by explaining all the

¶63

¶64

circumstances in the college. However, tl:re 2"d iespondent insisted the 3.d respondent to admit petitioner into college. It is specifically stated that the 3d respondent intimated the 2"d that conduct of petitioner is also not satisfactory .respondent and she is in the habit of quarrelling with colleague staff members and non-staff members and taking all these aspects into consideration, the 2"d respondent passed the impugned proceedings. On instructions of the 2"d respondent, the Jrd respondent uide proceedings dated O8.O9.2027 relieved petitioner enabling her to report duty at Governrnent Oegree College (W), Nalgonda. It is stated that knowing the impugned orders, petitioner ofl O8.O9.2O21 applied for Y" d.ay casual leave and went away from the college premises but leave was not sanctioned. As petitioner left the college, the 4h respondent sent message to petitioner stating that leave was not sanctioned and also conveyed the relieving proceedingS through whats app, e mail and also affixed a copy of the relieving order to the doors of her residence at Suryapet. These respondents denied the contention of petitioner that she was transferred in middle of the academic year as admissions of students in the degree college is presently going on and the 3'd phase, of admissions is scheduled to take place on 2O.O9.2021.

¶65

¶66

0 I

¶67

Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned cou.nsei for petitioner , leerrned Government Pleader for Higher Education and Sri^'1 . Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents 3 and 4.

¶68

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that in te rns of G.O.Ms.No. 890, dated O2.O8.1996, G.tl.Ms.No. 33, datec 24.O3.2OO5 and G.O.Ms.No. 35, dated 27.03.2006, and on re organization of courses / intake strength of courses in Aided /⁽ )riental / PG Colleges in the State that certain Aided courses 7 sec:tions in the State are running with unr:conomic strengtLL rnd beyond reviva,l with reference to stuclent strength and work loa,C, some of the managements have come forward with a prrposal to convert such uneconomic courses ,/ section of conven [ionnl courses under grant-in-aid into that of unaided courses / self hnance courses, close / merger sections. In view of the sar ne, :he 2.d respondent posted petitioner to [iDC (W), Nalgonda on redeplo5rment basis. The said order n a s issued purely c,n administrative grounds in view of the drastic fall in economic strength of the college. Hence, it carnot be sraid that petitioner alone was isolated. Further, the admis sions of studentsi:n the degree colleges is presently going on an,l the 3'd phase of. :Ldmissions is scheduled to take place on 2O.O9.2021,

¶69

¶70

-- i-'rl

¶71

therefore, the contention that petitioner was transferred in the middle of the academic year 2027 -22 does not hold water. In the

¶72

light of the same, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed

¶73