Allowed

Shamshuddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jun 2025WP/24224/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Record Assistant challenged allotment to Narayanpet district and rejection of appeal seeking allotment to erstwhile Mahabubnagar district under G.O.Ms.No.317 local cadre allocation. Court allowed petition, set aside orders, and directed reconsideration of his claim against existing vacancy arising on death of a junior allottee.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 22.12.2021 and 31.03.2022 set aside; matter remitted to first respondent to decide petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2021 considering vacancy from death of junior G. K

Shamshuddin Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:24224 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shamshuddin, S/o. Md.Osman, Aged 54 years, Working as Record Assistant, Government High School, Naraya-apet, Narayanapet D'istrict.

¶10

...PErrfloNEEe. AND a?-

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its^principal Secretary to Government, School_Educ_ation Department, Telangana State Secretariat, BRKS Bhavan, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director of School Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Educational Officer, Mahabobbnagar, Maliabubnagar District.

¶14

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a wri[ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that a) proceedings in No. ES/ES/MA/NARA/REAS/0005 dt. 22-12-2021 allotting the petitioner to Narayanpet District is illegal and arbitrary. b) declare that the rejection orders passed by the respondents in Memo No.SPl/Secretary peshil2o2l-255, dt.31-3-2022 is iltegal and arbitrary. c) further declare that the petitioner is entitled to be allotted to Mahaboobnagar District.

¶17

¶18

IANO^{.. 1} 0F²⁰²²

¶19

Petition under^{Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition'the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the^{respondentsto allot the petitionerto MahaboobnagarDistrict in the} existing vacancies,^{pending disposal of the Writ Petition}

¶20

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI' SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU}

¶21

Counsel forthe^{Respondents:AGPFORSERVICES I}

¶22

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶23

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶24

WRIT PETITION N0.24224 0F 2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶27

2. The^petitioner filed the writ oetition seekinq the llowin relief :

¶28

"... to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that

¶29

a) proceedings in No.ES/ES/MA/NARA/REAS/0005 dt. 2272-2021 allotting the petitioner to Narayanpet District is illega I and a rbitra ry.

¶30

b) declare that the rejection orders passed by the respondents in Memo No. S Pllsecret ary peshi/2O21-255, dt. 37-3-2022 is illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

c) further declare that the petitioner is entitled to be allotted to Mahaboobnagar District d) and pass... ".

¶32

The case of the petitioner in brief, is that petitioner initially joined the service as an Attender in February, 1990 and later promoted as Record Assistant in 2010. As per G.O. Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021 the petitioner was allotted to Narayanpet District vide proceedings No.ES/ES/tvtA/NARA/REAS/0005, dated

¶33

¶34

SN..I wP 2122,1²⁰²²

¶35

22.12.2021.^{Petitioner filedappealto the District Collector and} District^{Educational Officer on 27 '12'2021 but no action has been} acted upon^{the same.The petltioneron an earlier occasion filed} W.P. No.^{4167 of 2022challengingthe order dated22'12'2021'} allotting the^{petitioner toNagarkurnoolDistrictinstead of} Mahaboobnagar^{District and the Hon'ble Court passed interim} orders dated^{1.2.2022 directing the respondentsto considerand} pass appropriate^{orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner} dated 27.12.2027^{on or before 22'03'2022'According to the} Rules only^{2SC employeeswere to beallotted to} instead 3^{SC candidateswere} Mahaboobnagar^Districtbut District,^{theY are one Sri G'} allotted to^{Mahaboobnagar} Krishnaiah^{at Sl.No3., one Sri K Ravi Kumar at Sl'No'15 and} petitioner name^{is shown at Sl'No'5' Petitioner waspromoted as} Record Asslstant^{on 17} 'll'2010^{whereasG' Krishnaiahwas} promoted as^{RecordAsst' on 04'11'2011 and Ravi Kumarwas} promoted as^{Record Asst' on 11'10'2016and that both are} allotment is^contrarYto juniors to the petitioner and^the The resPondents^rejected dated^O6.t2.202L. G.O.Ms.No.317, the case of^{the petitioner by proceedingsdated 31'032022'}

¶36

¶37

SN, J wP 24224 2022

¶38

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶39

4. RUSED THE EC

¶40

(A) Th lmDuqned order vide Proc.No. Es/Es/ MAI NARA/REAS ooo5. Dated 22.L2.2021 oas ed bv the

¶41

resoon dent No.3 is extracted hereunder:

¶42

Government of Telangana Department of SCHOOL EDUCATION Proceedings of District Educational Officer, Ma habubnaga r

¶43

Proc.No. ES/ES/MA/NARA/REAS,/OOO5, Dated 22,L2.2O21

¶44

Sub: The Telangana^public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 2018 _ Organization of Local Cadres - Allotment of persons to New Local Cadre-Orders-Issued. Read: 1. G.O.Ms.No.317 GA(SpF) Dept., dated: 06.t2.2021.

¶45

ORDER

¶46

In pursuance of the provisions contained in paragraph 4 of the Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018 the Order and Guidelines issued in the reference 2"d cited and the alotment made by the Committee authorized by the Government. the following allotmeni is ordered.

¶47

Employee Name : SRI SHAMSHUDDIN

¶48

Employee ID : t7O6773 Employee Mobile Number : 9550227584 Designation ' : Record Assistant (Local Cadre) Erstwhile Local Cadre : Mahabubnagar Allotted New Local Cadre : Narayanpet

¶49

You are hereby directed to report to your new Local Cadre mentioned above within 3 days from issue of orders.

¶50

USHA RANI AGGADI District Educational Officer

SN,,I wP 24224 2022

Mahabubnagar

The Individua I Concerned.

¶57

(B) The imDuqned ordef t{!de Memo No. Sol/Secretarv Peshi/2O2 -25s, dated llJlil2o2l Dassed bv the resoondent No.1 rsext ereunder:

¶58

GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

¶59

Memo No. Spl/Secretary^{Peshi/2O2L-255, date z 3L.O3.2O22}

¶60

Sub: Presidential^{order 2018} -^Allocation of^local cadres Appeal received - orders^{of disposalof} appeal issued -^Reg.

¶61

Ref: 1 G.O.l,ls.No. I24, G.A.^(SPF-MC) Department, dt: 30.08.2018,

¶62

2 G.O.Ms.No.317, G.A.^(Ser.I), Dept. Dt : 06.72.2027, J Govt. Memo No.1655/SPF.L2O2l-7 of General Administration^(SPF.I) Department, Dt : 23.12.2O21.

¶63

4 Interim orders dated 01.02.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court issued in W.P. No. 4767 /2022 filed by Sri shamshuddin, Record Assistant, erstwhile Mahabubnagar District. ++*

¶64

The appeal filed by Sri^{Shamshuddin,Record Assistant,} erstwhile Mahabubnagar District has been examined in light of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.4167/2022, relevant rules, and records furnished by the District Educational Officer, erstwhile Mahabubnagar District. The petitioner is found not eligible for considering his case in terms of the orders issued in references 2nd and 3'd read above as there is deviation in allocation and seniority of the petitioner. No juniors to the petitioner were allotted to his preferred place. The appeal of the petitioner is hence rejected.

¶65

The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District and District Educational Officer, lYahabubnagar District are directed to take Further necessary action in the matter.

xxxx/-

SN, J wP 24224 2022

Sd/- SANDEEP KUMAR SULTANIA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FAC)

¶70

¶71

tn Darticular oar Nos. 6 to 11 are extr cted here nder:

¶72

"6. It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner is at Sl.No. (5) in the seniority list of Record Assistants, erstwhile Mahabubnagar district and was appointed on 01.03.1993 on compassionate appointment. Petitioner has given his preference for allotment of new local cadres in the order of Mahabubnagar and Narayanpet and he was allotted to the new local cadre of Narayanpet District. The general cut off for getting allotment to the new local cadre of Mahabubnagar district is at Sl. No. (1), whereas the petitioner is at Sl. No. (5) in the sen iority list.

¶73

It is respectfully submitted that, petitioner contends that he was promoted as Record Assistant on 17.11.2010 and the following Record Assistants were allotted to new local cadre of Mahabubnagar under SC proportion against guidelines who are juniors:

¶74

SI.No	Seniority No.	Nameof the Indlvidual	DateoFpromotionas Record Assistant
1		SriG.Krishnaiah	o4.LL.2017
2	15	Sri K.RaviKumar	11.10.2016

¶75

It is respectfully submitted that, a report was obtained from the District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar district. petitioner was appointed as Office Subordinate on 02.03.1990 belongs to General Category. The following are the findings in respect of the Record Assistants who were allotted to new local cadre Mahabubnagar district

\ --'l

SN. J wP 2D21 2D2

under sc/sr proportion as per G.o.Ms.No.317 and they are juniors to the petitioner with regard to the contention of the petitioner:

¶81

sl. No I	Seni of itv No. 3	GKrishnatah Nameof theindrvidual	Caste SC	Dateoffirst apporntment as offtce subordtnate 09.10.2007	Dateof promotion asRecord Assistant 05.11.2011	AJJotted District l4ahabubnagar	Remarks luntorto the
2	15	K.RavrKumar	SC	10.o7.2009	01.10.2016	Mahabubnagar	troner lunrorto the pebtioner

¶82

It is respectfully submitted that, if the seniority is revised as per the date of appointment in the cadre of Record Assistant, Sri. K. Dayakar Goud would be placed at Sl. No. (03) and Sri. Shamshuddin would be at Sl. No. (0a), Sri. Mogulappa would be at Sl. No. (05) and Sri. G. Krishnaiah would be placed at Sl. No. (06) in the seniority list,

¶83

1O. Further, it ts respectfully submitted that, total working strength of Erstwhile f.4ahabubnagar district is 24 and SC working strength is 03. The a|ocable strength for the new rocal cadre of Mahabubnagar is (04), Nagarkurnool is.(09). Wanaparthy is (04), Narayanpet is (05), Jogutamba_Gadwal is (01) and Ranga Reddy (part) is (01) which is fixed by the Finance Department. As per SC proportion, (01) SC is to be allotted to the new tocal cadre of Nagarkurnool, (01) SC js to be allotted to the new local cadre of Narayanpet and another senior most SC candidate is to be allotted to either Mahabubnagar or wanaparthy whichever he chooses first. As per seniority and preferences of the individuals, (01) senior most sc candidate i.e, Sri. G. Krishniah has given his first preference to the new local cadre of Mahabubnagar. Hence, he was allotted to the new local cadre of Mahabubnagar district.

¶84

¶85

SN, J wP 24224 2022

¶86

It is respectfully submitted that, out of^{(04) posts whichare} to allocated to the new local cadre of Mahabubnagar, Smt.^G. Maheshwari was allotted to the new local cadre of Mahabubnagar district under the preferential category of 'widow' as^per Guideline No.22 of appendix to G.O.Ms.No.317 GAD^(SPF-I), Dt .06.L2.2O21. Smt. Shaila Kumari was allotted to the new local cadre^of Mahabubnagar under general category. Even if Sri K. Ravi^Kumaris re-allotted from Mahabubnagar to the new local cadre of^{Nagarkurnool,} the petitioner would not have been allotted to^{I"lahabubnagaras} another (02) seniors namely Sri Sreedhar Raju^{and Sri K. Dayakar} Goud have given their first^preference to Mahabubnagar but^got allotted to other new local cadres".

¶87

DISCUSSION AND CO NCLUSION:-

¶88

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that vide the impugned proceedings No.ES/ES/MA/NARA/REAS/OOO5, dated 22.L2.2O21 of the District Educationa! Officer, Mahabubnagar, the petitioner was directed to report to the petitaoner's new Local Cadre i.e. Narayanpet within 3 days from the date^of order. The petitioner preferred appeal to the Secretary to Government (FAC),School Education Department, Government of Telangana against the^order,dated 22.L2.2O2L, but the same was rejected vide^{order, dated} 3L.O3.2O22, on the ground that there is^deviationin

SN, J wP 24224 2022

allocation and seniority of the petitioner and no juniors to the petitioner were altotted to petitioner,s preferred place. The learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order impugned dated 31.03.2022 of Respondent No.1 is bereft of reasons and without any justification. Learned counset for the petationer further pracing reriance on the detairs furnished in the tabutar statement in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 2nd respondent submits that one Sri G. Krishnaiah, who had been promoted on O5.11.2O11 is junior to the petitioner and was allotted to Mahabubnagar Distract and the said person had passed away and therefore, the petitioner,s request could be considered in the said existing vacancy.

¶93

Th ear ed n ov I m PI d n ta e nth v I n m ean h un r dav f on n o.2 con n th iti rt ot ti df th ti f s r or th n wri on u ow v r sn di u th fac s or on c I th th th firs r nd r ec hea ref red b he

SN, J wP 24224 702?

etiti ner witho st an son nd in R wo the sDecific olea of the oetitioner that one Sri G.Krishnai ah whoⁱ s^{iuniorotheD etitionerhad oa} ed be awavandh ence, a^{vacancvarose,the maer coul} reml tted to the l"t soonde nt for r consider^{ation of the} rmou oned oroceedin s, date 22.L2. O21 an 31.03. o22 issu ed to th^e oetitio^ner.

¶99

7.7 kin on rati

¶100

(a) The aforesaid facts and^{circumstancesof the}

¶101

case,

¶102

(b) The submissions made^{by the learned counsel} appearing on behalf^{of the petitioner and the learned} Assistant Government^{Pleader for Services-I,appearing} on behalf of respondent^{Nos.l to 3, and upon consentof} both the learned^{counselon record,}

¶103

(c) The averments made^{in the counter affidavit} filed on behatf of^{respondentNo.2 in particular para Nos'6} to 11 (referred^{to and extractedabove),}

¶104

¶105

SN, J wP 24224 2022

¶106

The w Detitio ts allo ed. The rmDUqn ed ro tn a 1 2 2a u d s re t o rnm n F s h ol Ed a e en OV to Te! en N ide nd th a refer d h ti t I h 1"t r on nt I ev a tn ei e m n rv EP o.E ES A RE s o 5 t 2.2 2L as d e .d es d t ml to h s re ern en F ch Ed a e G ern en of e an th ltt r n t n er tio of h sai e d 27.L o2 kin ln o n er ont s ific tio r t e K n h wh wa n o ti ran wh h n I d ha na D rt WI d t r o n ist as 1 n e e s h ss a dh ce er d mmoda ex tin V n s ro riat rd w n of two 2) ek ro the date !p fa coI, of this

SN, J wP 242)4 202)

order and dulv communicate the decision t the

¶111

petitioner. However. there shall be no order as to costs.

¶112

The miscellaneous applications,^{pending if any, shall stand}

¶113

closed.

¶114

'^I

¶115

ASSIS sD/' AHMED.+\ABS|kEIT'IHIH /

¶116

rffRUE coPY// secr$drrrcrn

¶117

"''r**'s[?""g::?y'"':''?""'fi 3:' "lss[H:l?:'f""""5X[83""3ffi , T.?'5,Y333,.03'ot"n""' |inff.$ff5q$'"ru;'#*,ifliru-'"u''ru:;il"i"' BM ?A

CC TODAY

HlGH COURT

DATED:2010G12025

ORDER

WP.No.24224 of 2022

I 1 e 1
c e
i) n f !
\ 2 S l-
*
rrqT
t

¶124

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶125

¶126

I o 1 *r

Shamshuddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshuddin v. The State of Telangana

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

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 3 Others Vs K. Sudheer Rao (Died) as per LRs

K. Venu Kumar Vs The Commissioner of Police and 2 others

B Krishna Murali Vs The Singareni Colleries Company Limited

Venkatesham Velimineti, Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Kurma Laxman Vs The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (Tslprb)

A.Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangna