The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents to accord notional seniority to petitioners as Secondary Grade Teachers from the date of their batch mates' appointment, relying on a prior Division Bench order.
Directing respondents to accord notional seniority to petitioners from 04.11.2010.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3301 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION NO: 23032 OF 2019
Between:
AND
:..RESPONDENTS
Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the action of the respondents are not counting the service of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment i.e., dated 04-'11.2010 with their batch mates as a Secondary Grade Teachers in the
respondents control instead of 21 .O7.20'12, the saidaction of therespondents is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and also in violation ofArt. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and declare the same as bad in law and consequently d rect the respondents to count the services of thepetitioners from the appointment of their batch mates as a Secondary Grade Teachers and declare their services from 04.1 1 .2010 and with all consequential and other benefits.
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
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 direct the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioners for counting of the services of the petitioners from their initially appointment of their batch mates as a Secondary Grade Teachers i.e., from 04.11.2010 instead of 21.O7.2012, while disposing of the representations dated 13.06.2019 which is pending without any orders pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - ll
The Court made the following: ORDER
I I
I /
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.23O32 of 2OL9
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following reliet
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of writ of Mandamus and to declare the action of the respondents zrre not counting the service of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment i.e., dated 04.11.2010 with their batch mates as a Secondary Grade Teachers in the respondents control instead of 21.07.2012, the said action of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and also in violation ofArt. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and declare the same as bad in law and consequently direct the respondents to count the services of the petitioners from the appointment of their batch mates as a Secondary Grade Teachers and declare their services from 04.11.2O10 and with all consequentia-l and other benefits and to pass...'
\
2
PK, J W P.No.23032 of 2019
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/. A. :;REENIVAS REDDY AS RAR
/
CER
To,
i
N/P
$
HIGH COURT
PK,J
DATED:1310212025
.n I oA
/:.
/,< P
{ t$r n
,::'
1r it}
;,'
i
l----,"
ORDER
WP.No.23032 of 2019
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
e9
K.r-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents were justified in not counting the petitioners' service from the date of their initial appointment?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.21193 of 2017 order dated 29.06.2017Referred¶34
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Gatti Srinivas
Kottem Ravinder
Vajja Subhadra
Mokalla Venkateshwar Rao
Dhanusari Laxman Kumar
The State of Telangana
Pulla Karthik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
