Disposed

B.Ravi v. The State of Telangna

Telangana HC6 Feb 2025WP/22162/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the High Court's earlier order of 28.06.2018 which disposed of their writ petition without further action, arguing that entitlement points for prior service had not been awarded. The current petition was disposed of without a new order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stood disposed of based on submission regarding a prior interim order. No further relief was granted.

B.Ravi Vs The State of Telangna — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA^KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22162 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 B.Ravi, S/o Ramdas, Age. 35^years, Occ. School^{Assistant(English),} M.P.U.P.School, Edira, Venkatapirram Mandal,^{JayashankarBhupalapalli} District.

¶9

2 V.Ganga, W/o Harisan, Age. 36^years, Occ. School^{Assistant (English)'} Z.P.H.School (Girls), lVanuguru, lVlanuguru Mandal,^{Bhadradri Kothagudem} District.

¶10

3 B. Veeranna, S/o Bitcha, Age. 35^years, Occ. School^{Assistant(English)'} l,4.P.U.P.School, Ramachandrapuram, Venkatapuram^{lr/andal, Jayashankar} Bhupalapalli District.

¶11

4 A.^(rishna Veni, D/o Thulisya, Age. 32^years, Occ. School^{Assistalt(English),} Z.P.S.School, Dharmavaram, Wazeedu Mandal, Jayashankar^Bhupalapalli District

¶12

..,PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

'1 . The State of Telangna, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Dept., Secrelariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Commissioner bnd Director of School^{Education, Govt. of Telengana,} Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶16

The District Educational Officer, Khammam District,^Khammam.

¶17

The District Educational Officer, Bhadradri Kothagudem^{District, Kothagudem.} 5. The District Educational Officer, Jayashankar^{BhupalapalliDistrict,} Bhu,ala,alli'

¶18

...RE'P.NDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 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 direction more particularly one in the nature^of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in^{not awarding} entitlement points to^petitioners for service rendered^{in theirrespectiveprevious} places prior to 30.05.2015 by which date they were temporarily adjusted to the present place as per G.O.Ms.No.130 General Administration (SR) Dept., dated 19.03.2015 in transfer counseling is illegal,arbitrary, discriminatory^{and violation}

¶20

i I

¶21

of Article^'14 and 16 of the Constitution of the lndia and consequentially declare that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of awarding the entitlement points respective service render in previous places prior to 30.05.2015

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to award entitlement points. to the petitioners for service rendered in their respective previous places prior to 30.05.2015 in the transfer counseling pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶24

Counsel for the Pelitioners: SRl. N. RAMU

¶25

Crounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶26

The Court made thr: following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK -

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.22162 of 2Ol8^z

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not awarding entitlement points to the petitioners, the present writ petition is fi led.

¶31

2l Heard Sri N.Ramu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents I to 5.

¶32

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 28.06.2018, no further orders are required in the present Writ Petition.

¶33

Recording the above made submission, the Writ Petition stands disposed of

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand ciosed.

¶35

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

a).+'

¶37

SDI. L. LAKSHMI^BABU ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

E N OFFICER

To,

The Principal^{Secretary, School Education Dept',S} tariat,

¶42

T.S..Hvderabad.

¶43

z. i;,i'b6il".IJridner^{andDirector of schoolEducation, Govt. of relengana,} Saifabad, HYderabad.

¶44

1. The District^Educational Officer, Khammam^{District,Khammam.} 4. The District Educational Oftii"r, ShiOrad^{ri Kothagudem Dislrict, Kothagudem} 5. The District^Educattonal Officer, Jayashankar^{BhupalapalliDistrict,} Bhuodlaoalli.

¶45

o. ;. i;; One'CCio dcsio SRl.^{-ci N.} ron^{RAMU, seHvrCes Advocate r ,High} [OPUC]^{court for the state of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUTI

¶46

W 8. Two CD CoPies BM GJP

-bt.*?-^-''-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610212025

ORDER

WP.No.22162 of 2018

I .tE r; I (-
o
t\i 0 2 up.r ?lzs z
t',
I
s,A1 t) EO

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

B.Ravi v. The State of Telangna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ravi v. The State of Telangna

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

Dr. M. Sarveshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

M. Rampal Vs The State of Telangana

G.Venkataiah Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Mr. C. Shiva Arjun Vs The Chairmen and Managing Director

Ch.Jeevan Joel Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

K.Srinivasa Reddy Vs The District Educational Officer