Disposed

K.Naresh Kumar v. The Director of School Education

Telangana HC10 Feb 2025WP/40842/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging transfer and appeal orders relating to a teacher's posting entitlements, including web-option postings and NCC officer entitlement. In view of an earlier interim order dated 03.12.2018, counsel submitted no further orders were necessary; the Court recorded the submission and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.Naresh Kumar Vs The Director of School Education — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

i II

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE S'I

¶3

A N GA NA ; ;" j L*il":i#.[fl :fi ",

¶4

MH6I,HHIIE#TNDJ#FG?BRUARY

[³³⁰¹ J

PRESENT

Between:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETtTto NN O:4 0842oF 2018

¶9

K.Naresh (Physicat Dist. [fl i !"i'".[',f^,s:Hjfl , i"rrT,,i?l $rXfi,l:lnl 'ifffliflH:E#

¶10

AND ,..PETITIONER

¶11

i $i'sir#nEuflffi*'d-fltffi *: :::,.,,,"

¶12

¶13

"'RESPONDENTS

¶14

"'RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 2)A at ts^ t ... ilH'n :",^{j:* j""} i ::[th:r;: : :r',.^{ff '#, r il T:} decrarins rhe impugned proc. No.22i6 tA3t2o1'., il1;,"J :Ji"T ffiiT; respondent of the 2nd respondent and consequentiar orders passed on an appear vide^proc Rc No.lB4BlTransfers/ser.rV . 21201S-Appears/Hyd and Wgr dt.0g_10_ 2018 of the 1st respondent (uptoaded on 01-1 1_2O.tB in *uO ",,e ;;" ;.;,", less entiflement points candidates even withdut N.C.l illegal, arbitrary, unjust and set aside the same in so far as petitioner ,, :'t" decrare that the petitioner is enti,ed to be posted ,r;fiilH::::i'r:ffi.jY in opted praces in web option incruding N.c.c. officer or to be accommodated against \ acancies or continue in the same prace with a, consequentiar benefits, payment of salary from 09.07.20.1g to till date.

¶15

IA^NO:1OF2018

¶16

:tion^{I 51 CPCprayingthat in the circumstan:es statedin} Petition^{under Sr:} ort of^{the petition' the HighCourt may be prlei'rsedto direct} the affidavit^{filed in suPP} re^{postingorders to the petitioner zrs per his entitlement} the resPondents^{to iss't} is web^{option in opted placgs in vvs$ rlplron or to be} points of^{37 as Per h} ;t vacancy^{atZ P'H S'Gopalpetortiuddaramor} accommodated^agairl: continue^{in the same place by:;us pendingthe} WanaParthY^orto dt Oil-^10-2018of fers/Ser.lV.^{2t2O1i-Appeals/Hyd &} Proc.Rc.No^1848/Trars "Ngl ding disposal^{of the above writpetitic n'} the^{1st resPondentPen}

¶17

counser^{for the Petition:l^iT,"T:s3::3iLF54oStRvrcES-l} Counsel^{for the Respond€}

¶18

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶19

ri I

¶20

TITE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.40842 0F 2018

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri M.Ram Gopal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the interim order dated O3.]2.2OIB granted by this Court, no further orders are necessary to be passed in the Writ petition.

¶24

2 Recording the above said submission, this Writ petition rs accordingly disposed of.

¶25

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

¶26

costs.

¶27

SD/-N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶28

¶29

secrkrrrcea

¶30

1 . The Director of School Education, Govt. of Telengana, Hyderabad. 2. The Regionat Joint Director or SChoor Eoircaio]i,ijvjeraoaa. 3. The Diskict Educationat Officer, UifraUuO-*"i'b'i.i. 4. The Principal Secretary, Scnooi eaucilion OEpt., itcretrriat, Hyderabad, State of Telanoana. o5. 9n" 99 to sRT M.RAMGOPAL RAO, Advocate lopucl . Two ccs to GP FoR SERVTCES-I, High cou( f; irr-e-state of rerangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI 7. Two CD Copies PSK. GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1^010212025

ORDER

WP.No.40841>-^{of 2018}

¶35

E I5l -+... ,?,;<br>.?
JJ
,$
..
QS
]C $
<br>

¶36

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶37

/0
/
I
4
I /(, /

K.Naresh Kumar v. The Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.Naresh Kumar v. The Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Gopal Vs The Superintendent of Police and 3 Others

Smt.B.Laxmi Vs Sri Rahul Bojja, IAS

Nara Dattu Vs Sri Lokesh Kumar

Banavath Jabbar Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. K. Madhuri Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

B.Srinivasa Chowdary Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others