Dismissed

Sri.v.Naveen Kumar v. The District Educational Officer

Telangana HC2 Jan 2025WP/37168/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition on admission, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for promotion to LFL Head Master(PSHM) and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, without adjudicating the merits of the seniority challenge.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.07.2024 and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time.

Sri.v.Naveen Kumar Vs The District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ I

¶2

i il

¶3

H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶7

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 37168 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri. V.Naveen Kumar, S/o -S1.V.Q!rennaiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT), Government Primary School,-Mothinagar, Mahabub.nagar Town, -Mahabubnagar. District, Ryo. H.No.B-TB,Kurvag?ri, DevarkadravillageandMandal,MahrbubnagarDistrict.

¶10

...pETlTlONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar at Mahabubnagar, Telangana State.

¶13

The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar.

¶14

The Commissioner and Director ofschool Education, State 6f Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad-4.

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep.,by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secratariat, Hyderabad

¶16

5 9_mt A.Madhavi, W/o not know, Aged about. Major, Occ. LFL (pSHM)Head Master, Government Primary School, Venkateshwaia Colony(SSA) Mahabubnagar District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 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 a Writ Order or Orders more in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned action of the respondents in not taking any action on not promoting the petitioner to the post of LFL Head Master(pSHM) and promoting the unofficial respondent though she is much junior in Schedule Caste community and already women candidate is promoted to the post of LFL Headmaster by ignoring the seniority of the petitioner and stated that adequacy is reached in Schedule Caste community vide G.O.Ms.No.2 dt.Ogto1t2OO4, G.O.Ms.No.76. Dt.19l1O|2OO4, G.O.Ms.No.11S.E.(Ser.'1 1)Dept, Dt.23.01.2009, Proc.of the 3rd respondent No.565/Trans/Ser.lV-212O22, Dt.26lO1t2O23, 0110912023, 0710612024 and the Proc of the 1st respondent vide Rc. No.B2l316l2O23 Ot.22lO6t2O24, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory unjust and in

¶19

violation of Articles 14 and 16 0f the^{constitutionof lndia and hold that the} petitioner is entitled to be promoted for the^post of^{LFL Head Maste(PSHM)and} direct the respondents to^{promote the petitioner to the postof LFL Head Master} (PSHM) with all consequential benefits.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the respondents to redress^{grievance of the petitionerrepresentation} dale.2\tO7 t2024 and^{promote petitioner to the post of LFL Head Master(PSHM)} till the disposal of the above^{writ petition.}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{P.PASULA LAXMA REDDY} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1 TO 4: GP FORSERVICESI} Counsel for the Respondent^No.5: -

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

I t

t I

I I

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.3716a OF 2024

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission^stage.

¶31

This Writ Petition is hled under Article 226 of^{Constitutionof}

¶32

India seeking the following reliet

¶33

"-..1o issue o Wit Order or Orders more^{ift the natureof thr,Writ of Man<lornus} declaing that the imrygned .,ction of^{tLLelespoftdentsin not takinganA actioftott not} promoli^g the petitioncr to the^post of LFL Head^{Master(PSHM)and promotittgthe} ftolficial respondent though she i.s much iuflior^{in Schedule Casle commu\itV and} alrEadg uomen candidate is^{promoted.to the post of LFL Headmaster bg ignoingtlle} se\ioitlt of the petitio\er oid stated^{ttlatadequacV is reached ttSchedlicCaste} communitg uide C.o.Ms,No.2 dt.09/01/2004,^{G.O.Ms.No.76,Dt.19/1o/2oo4,G.o.Ms.} No.11 S.E.(Ser.II) Dept, Dt.23.01.2oo9,^{Proc.ofthe3d respondefttNo.565/Trans/ Ser.N-} 2/2022, Dt.26/01/2023, 01/09/2023 07/06/2024^{atdthe Proc of the 1' respottdent} uide Rc.No.B2/ 316/ 2023 Dt.22/06/2O24,^{is illegal, arbitrary, discnminatory,uniust} and in Diotatiot of Articles 14 and 16 of^{the Constitutioaof India and hold thatthc} petitioner is entitled to be promoted Jor the^post of LFL Head^{Master(PSHMIdnddirect} the respondents to pro.note ttle^{pettlio/Ler to thepostof LFLHead Master(PSHM)u.rith alL} con-seque tial benefits and pass. -.'

¶34

Heard Sri P.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel^{for the petitioner} and learned Government Pleader for the Services-I^{for the} respondents.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that^{the petitioner} is working as Secondary Grade^{Teacher in Government Primary} School, Mothinagar, Mahabubnagar arrd^{respondentNo.1} displayed the seniority list of the eligible^{candidates to be promoted} to the post of LFLHM (PSHM) on 09.06.2024, wherein^{the petitioner} is shown at 51.187 and respondent No.S is shown at^51.561. However, ignoring the same, the respondents have^promoted

¶36

PK, J Wp-37168 2024

¶37

¶38

respondent No.S as LFLHM^{on 22.06'2024' Therefore,the} petitioner has made a representation^{on 25'07} '2O24^{to respondent} No. 1 requesting to consider^{his case for promotion and the same is} pending consideration. Hence,^{learned counselprays this Courtto} direct respondent^No. 1 to^{consider the representation,dated} 25.07.2024, submitted^{by the petitioner and passappropriate} orders, within a^{reasonable period of time.}

¶39

l,earned Government^{Pleaderfor the respondents fairly} submits that respondent^{No.1 will considerthe representationof} the petitioner, dated 25.07.2024,^{and pass appropriate orders} thereon, in accordance with^law.

¶40

Having regard to the submissions^{made by the learned} counsel for the respective^{parties and withoutgoing into the merits} of the case, this Writ Petition is^{disposed of directingrespondent} No.1 to pass appropriate orders on the^{representation,dated} 25.07.2024, submitted by the^{petitioner,strictly in accordance} with law, as expeditiously as^possible and^{communicatea copy} thereof to the^petitioner. There shall be no^{order as to costs.}

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any , shzrll stand^closed.

¶42

¶43

¶44

SD/- S,MALLTKARJUNA^RAO TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// . SECTION OFFICER \

¶45

1 . The District Educational^{Officer, Mahabubnagarat Mahabubnagar, Telangana} State.

¶46

The District Collector, Mahabubnagar^{District at Mahabubnagar'}

¶47

The Commissioner and Director of School^{Education, State of Telangana,} Saifabad,Hyderabad-4.

¶48

The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secratariat,
Hvderabad, State ofTelangana. <br>5. ii'":=#i,;'sHiF;.Fhiiiln LAXMA REDDY, Advocate toPucl <br><br>O. fwo CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana' at
Hyderabad. [OUT]
7. Two CD Copies
PSK.
k..*'
I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210112025

ORDER

WP.No.37168 of 2024

.i $L STA 16 Q^
t
'
L
2 i JIN ?[25
t)
-t
i OEs; r.a'f .n€

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

Sri.v.Naveen Kumar v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.v.Naveen Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Jyothi Vs Union of India and another

Bhupati Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

N.Sucharitha Vs The State of Telangana

R. Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Alekhya Masaipeta Vs The State of Telangana

Doddapinni Venkata Ramana Rao Vs The Union of India