Disposed

Shaik Amjad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2025WP/6260/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionately appointed Junior Assistant sought consideration of representations for transfer/absorption to Hyderabad district under G.O.Ms.No.70. Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representations after personal hearing and pass reasoned order within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 directed to consider petitioner's representations dated 03.07.2017 and 17.02.2021 with personal hearing and reasoned order within three weeks.

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

II i i i I t ! I

[32s2 ]

: I i i i

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

IVONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 6260 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Shaik Amjad, S/o Late Shaik Yousuf, Aged about 42 years, Occ ; Junior Assistant, Rl/o H.No.200X, NRR Puram, Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶11

.....PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

'I . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Medak District.

¶16

The Director, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶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 any Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents not considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 0310712017, 1710212021 as there is a clear vacancy in 2nd and 4th Respondents office as Junior Assistant post even after representation made by the Petitioner to the Respondents are not issuing the regular post as a Junior Assistant in the above offices which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural^justice as well as in violation of Art.14 of Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the Respondents to consider

¶19

.'{ - -,-"4q,,

¶20

the representatic ns of the Petitioner dated 03/07/2017 . 17 l( 2t2021 in the light of the GORI.No.18' dated 1410312017 and GOIv1S.No.70 dated 1110212008.

¶21

l.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition Urrder Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci'r.rmstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of the petition, the High Co!,r nay be pleased to direct the Resprrndents to consider the representations ol the Petitioner dated 0310712017, 17lt)212021 in the light of GORt.No.181 dz lr:d 1410312O17 and GOlVlS.No.70 dated 11l02l2OOB as Junior Assistant at 2n( 'lespondents Office pending disposal of the writ petitron.

¶23

|.A.NO:2 OF 2023

¶24

Petition Urtder Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the ci r.rmstances stated in the affidavit filecl rn support of the petition, the High Cou rlay be pleased to suspend the GORt.No.1'19 dated 2310312023 issued by the^{:i.r,spondent} No.1 and permit the Petitioner to continue in the office of the 2nd Rer;l ondent as a Junior Assistant, pending disposal of the main writ petition in this i.le'est of justice.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.ARUN KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES- ll

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER

¶28

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.626O oF 2023

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Heard Sri G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.

¶32

The Detitioner a DD f oached this Court seekin ot he player as under:

¶33

'...to issue any Writ, Order or dlrection more particuiarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 03.07.2077, 17.02.2027 as there is a clear vacancy in 2nd and 4fr' respondents office as lunior Assistant post even after representation made by the petitioner to the respondents are not issuing ihe regular post as a Junior Assistant in the above offices which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 03.07.2077, 17.02.2021 in the light of the GORI No.181 dated 14.03.2077 and G.O.Ms.No.70 dated 11.02.2008 and pass such other order..."

¶34

¶35

-:\ \

¶36

-:\ \ ''q*aiEEqf ...SNI ' --'4'!':-- .?-. ;:EI" wP 6260 2023^{tt.:;51.,',,;;} -ri.:i 't

¶37

The case of the^{petitioner, in brief,is that :-re father of the} petitioner was a PET Teacher at ZPHS^{Rama :llandrapuram/} Medak District and died^{while inservice . r29.06.2002'} Thereafter the^{petitioner herein was appointer.l as a Junior} Assistant in the existing^{vacancy at ZPHS l(udraramon} compassionate^grounds on^{15.11.2005. The peiil-ioner madea} representation dated 03.07.2017 to^{the 1't respondent for} transfer to the^petitioner's native^{District Hydr:rabadand 1't} respondert vide G.O.Rt.No.181,^{PR & RD (Pts iv) Department} dated 14 03.2077 , transferred^{the petitioner'sr;ervicesfrom} Medak Di:;trict to Hyderabad^{District. Thereafterthe petitioner} made representation dated^{17.02.2021 to resporrdent No.2 to} transfer the^petitioner from^{Medak District1-o Hyderabad} permanently according to the G.O.Ms.No.70^{dal.ed 11.02.2008} where it is clearly mentioned^{that the empl-ryeeswho are} appointed under the^{compassionategrounds in a r:adreto which} they are not local be^given an^{opportunityto opl tor transferto} their local cadre. However,^{the respondents havr: not considered} the petitioner's representation^{thoughthere is a Vacant post for} Junior Assistant. Aggrieved by^{the same, the petitioner filedthe} present writ petition.

¶38

PE RUSED THE RECORD:-

SN. J \'P 6260 l02l

I !l

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in spite of several representations made by the petitioner dated 03.07.2017 and 17.02.2021 to the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's candidature for transfer oF petitioner's services from l"ledak District to Hyderabad District, since there is a clear vacancy in the 2nd and 4th respondents office to the post of Junior Assistant, no action had been initiated by the respondents as on date.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that the representation of the petitioner dated L7.02.2021, being acknowledged by the office of the 2nd respondent herein and an endorsement also made on the said representation but however, there had been no action on the said representation. Learned counsel further submits that the representation dated 03.07.2077 addressed to the 1't respondent had been acknowledged by the office oF the 1't respondent way back in the year 2017, but however, the request oF the petitioner for Tra n sfer/A bsorptio n in the post of Junior Assistant in the office of The Commissioner, RD / Commissioner, PR & RE, under DR vacancy had not been considered by the respondents, even as on date

F :5

SN, J \'P 6160 2023

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of lhe petitioner contends that the writ petition could be disposer-r :' directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the grievance^(,i the petitioner as put forr-h by the petitioner's representation c.. td a3.07 .2017 addressed to the 1tt respondent herein and th,-^{'epresentation} dated 17.02.2021 addressed to the 2nd responderl herein, within a reasonable^period, by providing a reasonabl(:^{,:,pportunity} to the petitioner to put forth petitioner's grievanc(, lefore the 1't and 2nd respondent herein.

¶48

Learned Assistant Government Pleadel a,DDearinq on behalf of the r n s ute th sa id submissi h arned counsel appearinq on behalf of the^petitioner.

¶49

8, Takinq into consideration:

¶50

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumsj:ernces of the case,

¶51

(b) The submissions made by the le;rrned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, anrl the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing^,crr behalf of respondents,

¶52

SN, J wP_6260 2021

¶53

¶54

(c) G.O.Ms.No.70 dated 11.O2.2OO8 which provides that the employees who are appointed under the compassionate^grounds in a cadre to which they are not local be given an opportunity to opt for transfer to their local cadre,

¶55

The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents l and 2 to consider the^grievance of the petitioner as put forth by the petitioner vide petitioner's representation dated O3,O7.2OL7 addressed to the l't respondent herein and the representation dated L7.O2.2O2L addressed to the 2nd respondent herein,ⁱⁿ accordance to law, in conformity with^principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and^pass appropriate reasoned order, within a period of three (O3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate^the decision to the petitioner, on the^petitioner's representation dated Og.O7.2OL7 addressed to the l't respondent herein and the representataon dated L7.O2.2O2L addressed to the 2nd respondent herein, pertaining to consideration of petitioner's candidature for Transfer/Absorption in the^post of Junior^{Assistant in the}

¶56

¶57

Sf,V..' \P 62ar0 1023

¶58

office of the Commissioner, PR & RD at Hyderrabad. There

¶59

shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

Misc:llaneous petitions, if any pendinq in this Writ

¶61

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶62

SD/-M.NAGAMANI

¶63

AS::ll;rf Nr REGTSTRAR

//TRUEcopy// ,\,-

,ECrloN^oFFlcER

The Principar secretary, panchayat_Raj and Rurar Devr)ropment Department, Secretarrat, State of Telangana dt Hyderabad.

¶69

The comrnissioner,^panch-ayat Raj dnd Rurar Deveropr.rent, Himayathnagar, Hyderabarl.

¶70

The Chief Executive Officer, Ziila parishad, t\Iedak Dist.ct.

¶71

The Direclor, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, H rn ayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶72

5 Two ccs .o GP FoR SERVTCES-I, High court for ther :]t;rte of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. One CC to SRt c.ARUN KUN/AR, Advocate IOPUCI

¶73

Two CD Copies

SA/BSK

C.C. TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510912025

q
T /-'
,')
) -a-- )
i ,.) 'i !_il 20?5
'., i -ir

ORDER

WP.No.6260 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

10J
1b

Shaik Amjad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Amjad 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

Dr.M. Raja Veeru Vs Smt. Christina Z.Chongthu Garu, IAS

Smt. B.Sugandha Vs Sri Burra Venkatesham

Dr.C.Narmada Vs Smt. Christina Z.Chongthu Garu

T.Nagaiah Vs State of Telangana

P.Raheem Vs The District Collector

Ch. Shivaraju Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others