Disposed

R. Jagadamba, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Feb 2025WP/5104/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Armed Reserve Head Constable alleged she was wrongly allotted to Zone-V instead of Zone-VI (Cyberabad) due to an erroneous seniority list, despite a police recommendation for reallocation. The High Court, without deciding merits, directed respondent No.1 to consider her representation and pass orders in accordance with law within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 23.12.2024 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within eight weeks.

R. Jagadamba, Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ J

¶2

rN THE HrcH couRT FoR THE srarE or TELANGANA AT HyDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITI ON NOr 5104 OF 2425

¶8

Betwecn:

¶9

R. Jagadamba, Wo. P. Prashanth Aged about 32 years, Occ. Armed Reserve Head Constable, ARHC No.7174, R{o H'No. 4-19, Thondipally (V), Shamshabad (M), Rangareddy (D), Telangana 509325.

¶10

..,PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hydera!ad.

¶13

2 The Director General of Police, Telangana State Police, Telangana State Police H eadquartes. Hyderabad, Tellangana

¶14

3 The lnspector General of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissione(^gf Police, Rachakonda, Telangana. E The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Telangana, Gachibqwli-500032,

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ i)Declaring tlp.inaction of the Respondents in failing to allot the Petitioner in Zone-Vl (Cyberabad) for the post of Armed Reserve Head Constable despite the recommendations of the 2nd Respon{ent Dt. 20.05.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the directions in G.O. Ms. No. 317 DL.06.12,2021 and consequently to direct the Respondent No.'1 to^{allot the Petitioner} from^Zone-V to Zone-Vl^{duly considering} the recommendations made by the 2nd Respondent/Director General of Police vide Letter dated. 20.05.2024, and ii)Declare that the Petitioner is deemed to havs

¶17

-...^ia

¶18

been allocated to Zore-Vl w.e.f 06.05.2019 as Armed Reserve llead Constable and consequently direct the respondents to extend all consequential benefits on par with similarly situated persons.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under ilection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the^{affjdavitfiled in} support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasqd tp direct the Responclent No.1 to ipplement the recommendationg of the 2n! Reqpondent vide^Letter Dt. 20.Q5.2024 while directing consideration of the iepreseotationdated.23.12.2024. :

¶21

Ceunsel for the Petitioner : SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM

¶22

Counsel^{fortheRespondents:GOVERNMENT PLEADER} FOR HOME

¶23

The Cqurt made the following: ORDER

¶24

.t:

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJF^SITWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.51O4 of 2o25

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Armed Reserve Police Constable (ARPC) 1n the year 2015 in Zone-YI (Cyberabad) Thereafter, the petitioner became eligible to the post of Armed Reserve Head Constable (ARHC) in the year 2018. While so, respondent No.5 had issued a promotion order for 552 ARPC's to ARHC's (only men) vide proceedings D.O.No.687 /2019, dated 06.05.2019 without observing the roster pointg on women reservation prior to the above 552 promotions. However, the petitioner is promoted without obserwing the roster point on women reservation and allotted to the office of respond€nt No.4.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the year 2021, the State Government issued G.O.Ms No.317,

¶31

¶32

dated06.12.2C2lforzonebifurcationintheStateofTe.l.angana. In terms of the said^{G. O} ',^{the petitioner was allottecl to the} Rachakonda Police^{Commissionerateinstead ofC'yberabad} Police Commissionerate^{vide proceedingsdated 25 12 ''l'O2l ' ln} view of the errotreous^{preparationof senioritylist, the lletitioner} waswronglypostedtoZone-Yinsteadofherrightfulzr].location to Zone-VL^{'I'LLerefore, on 15. 11 .2022, the petitioner made a} representation^to the^{Department to allot her to Zone-/l instead} of Zone-Y.

¶33

Learned counsel for^{the petitioner furthersubmitsthat in} response to t,he representation^{of thepetitione'r, dated} 15.t1.2022, the Inspector^{General ofPolice, We:st Zone,} Hyderabad, addressed^{a letter videRc'No778/E3-} 84/CHR|2}2rl,, dated^{24.11.2022 toresponderLt No'5} requesting to offer a^{specihcremarks on the representationof} the petitioner^{herein for taking further action.}

¶34

Learned r:ounsel^for the^{petitionerfurther submitsthat in} response to^{t-LLe proceedings dated 24 -11 .2022, ad'lresseda} letter to the Inspector General^{ofPolice, Mult:. Zone-II,}

¶35

¶36

¶37

Hyderabad, rride Rc.No.E 1 / 228 / CYB / 2023, dated 02.12.2023 submitting the response to the representation made by^the petitioner and informed that there is no objection to allot her from Zone-V to Zone-Y7^(Cybearabad) and requested to^revise the placement of the petitioner in the ARHC seniority^1ist.

¶38

l,earned counsel for the petitioner further^submits that^on 15.12.2023 respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the^Director Genera,l of Police, Telangana State, requesting to^changethe placement of the petitioner in seniority in Cyberabad Commissionerate as per women roster and^{also to transferthe} petitioner frorn Zone-V to Zone-Vl. In response to the^{same, the} Director General of Police addressed a letter^{dated2O.O5.2O24} to respondent No.1 and stated that the^{Commissioner of Police,} Cybearabad, has informed that^{the disciplinary action has been} initiated against Sri B.Praveen^{Kumar, SeniorAssistant} formerly working in Cybearbad,^{and now working in Zone Y,} who has wrongly prepared the seniority list^{of ARFIC's vide} letter No.Bl lMPRl266/Cyb/2O22,^{dated 15.01.2024.The} Director General of Police vide^{proceedingsdated 2O.O5.2O24,} recommended the^case of the^{petitioner herein for allotment to}

¶39

¶40

¶41

Cyberabad (Zone Vl in terms of G.O.Ms.No.31?',^dated 06.12.2021

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner further sutlnits^that despite the re'commendation of respondent No.2 rride^letter dated 20.O5.2'.C24 to respondent No.1, no action^{has treentaken} by then respondents herein. Therefore, the^petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.12.2024 to respondent No. 1 seeking orders in pursuance to the recommendations of respondent llc,. 2 dated 20 .O5.2O24 , but no action J-ras been taken by the re spondents. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ pretition.

¶43

Having considered the submissions made b5' learned counsel for thr: Petitioner and without going into the merits of the case, rer;pondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.72.2024 zrnd pass appropriate c,rders in accordance with law within a period of eight (0a) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of tlus order

¶44

With th,e above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶45

¶46

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{applicationspending,if any, in}

¶47

this Writ Petition, shall^{stand closed.}

¶48

SD/-P. GOWRI S KAR ASSISTANT STRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICE

To,

The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department,^Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶53

2 The Director General^{of Police,Telangana State Police, Telangana State} Police H eadquartes. Hyderabad, Telangana

¶54

J The lnspector General of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad.

¶55

4 The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda,^Telangana.

¶56

5 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad,^{Telangana, Gachibowli-500032.}

¶57

0 Qne^{CC to SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM, Advocate.TOPUCI}

¶58

7 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana^at llyderaPad. [oUT]

¶59

¶60

Two QD.Copies.

tssKBS,

@) tssKBS,

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10212025

ORDER

WP.No.S104 of 2025

1 HE ST4T e
{
f
,') tl 7 irAfl 2025 oz
n
*{-
\qJf""^tc

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

R. Jagadamba, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Jagadamba, v. 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

G.Bhoomaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Ch.Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

N.Ashok Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

V.Sai Kiran Babu Vs The State of Telangana

R.Shivani Devi Vs The State of Telangana

K.Anjaneyulu, Vs The Sate of Telangna