Disposed

Dr. Putta Sandhya v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Jul 2025WP/9828/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two Veterinary Assistant Surgeons objected that approval of an officer's inter-state deputation as Assistant Director blocked their promotions despite top seniority. The State stated the officer was instead placed with a cooperative federation for three years without affecting petitioners' promotional prospects. Court found grievance redressed and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' grievance declared redressed; State directed to consider filling promotional post per rules; petition disposed without costs.

Dr. Putta Sandhya Vs State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^3147'1

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 9828 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr. Putta Sandhya, D/o. P.Bixa Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, T.G. Veterinary Biological Research lnstitute, Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶10

Dr. Sirasapalli Shilpa, D/o. K.Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 43 years, Veternary Assistant Surgeon, Standardisation Division of Biological Products, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 State of Telangana, rep., by its Special Chief Secreta ry to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Uepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Director, Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶15

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi.

¶16

Dr. K.Vani Sree, Assistant Director (VBRI), Vijayawada, NTR District, State of ndhra Prades

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ol 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 direction more particularly one in the natuie of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Government Letter No. 928lAH.l(1)12025, AH, DD and Fisheries DLpartment, dated 20_3-2025 in approving the inter-state deputation of the 4th respondent as Assistant Director to the state of relangana in contravention of the rules and also Government circular [.4emo No. 9940/SPEandMcl2ols-z, dated 6-10-2017 thereby oepriving-1he promotional avenues of the qualified Veterinary Assistant surg'eons'working in Telangana State for promotion to the post of Assistant Direciors is as iiie"gar,

¶19

arbitrary, unjust, c iscriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 1 6 and 21 of the Constitution of Inc ia and consequently set-aside the same and hold that the petitioners are entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Directors (VandAH) in accordance with tt'eir eligibility and seniority in the available vacancies with all consequential benefits

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci':umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents not to proceed further in deputing the 4th respondent to the post of Assistant D rector of Animal Husbandry in Telangana State pursuant to Government Letter l,'lo. 928/AH.l(1y2025, AH, DD & Fisheries Department, dated 20-3-2025, pending lisposal of the above writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petrtioners: SRl. D BALA KISHAN RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: Ms. SHALINI GP FO(L SERVICES ll

¶24

Counsel for the Rescondent No.3: SRI A. RAGHURAM AGP FOR THE STATE OF AP

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent 4: --

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAO NANDIKONDA

¶29

W.P.No.9828 OF 2025

¶30

QBDEB,^{(per Hon'bleSri Justice P.SamKoshy)}

¶31

Heard Mr.D.Balakishan Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioners, Ms. M,Shalini, iearned Government Pleader for Services II for respondent Nos.1 &2 and Mr.A.Raghuram, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh for respondent No.3. Perused the record

¶32

The instant writ petition was one which was filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents-State of Telangana in approving the interstate deputation of respondent No.4 as Assistant Director, thereby depriving the petitioners their promotional avenues as it was on that post that the petitioners were considered for promotion being placed at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 in the State seniority.

¶33

Today, Ms. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services II subrnits that the respondent-State has taken care of ensuring that the accommodation of respondent No.4 in the State

¶34

¶35

of Telangara would not adversely effect the promotional prospects of the two petitioners herein. According to the learned Govemment Pleader, respondent No.4 has been allocated to the State of^'l'elangana as Assistant Director in the office of the Managing Director, Telangana Sheep and Goat Development Cooperative^.-ederation Limited, Hyderabad for a period of three years vide order dated 03.05.2025. The learned Government Pleader furthe,r submits that since respondent No.4 has been taken on deputatio;r in the aforesaid Federation, the promotional avenues of tht: petitioners would not be adversely eft'ected in any manner.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid development and also taking note of the fact that respondent No.4 has been accommodated in the Federation to the Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Departlnent, we are of the considered opinr,ln that the grievance of th: petitioners as of now stands redressed. Now, the only aspect thit remains is the eligibility of the peti:ioners for promotion to the next promotional post to which they are entitled for against the post lying vacant, it is for the State Govemment

¶37

¶38

¶39

and the Department^concemed to^{take appropriatesteps/measures} for filling up of the^{promotional post} subject to^{verificationof}

¶40

facts and also in accordance with the Rules.

¶41

The writ petition, accordingly,^{stands disposedof.}

¶42

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

Consequently, miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any, shall}

¶44

stand closed.

¶45

/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI SI TANT REGIST

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Animal u andry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Secretariat, erabad

¶50

¶51

The Director, Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶52

The Principal Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi.

¶53

One CC to SRl. D BALA KISHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll,High Courtforthe State of Telangana. tourl

¶55

Two CCs to AGP FOR THE STATE OF AP, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶56

Two CD Copies KKS GJ D

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610712025

ORDER

.-.,,r1<br>.. .. \
"^.,.
(, \
:)
'J 1 B [[T 2925 o
t,Eslr..,: t \-:O

¶61

WP.No.9828 ol 2025

¶62

DISPOSING TIIE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COIJTS

¶63

Dr. Putta Sandhya v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Putta Sandhya 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

M/S Dayal Wood Works, Kothagudem. Vs State of Ap, Rep.by Its State Representative Before Stat

Gopal Reddy Sureddy Vs Assessment Unit

Dr. N. Satyanarayana Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. The Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Limited Vs Assessment Unit

Live India Ventures and Estates Vs The Income tax officer ward 14(1), Hyderabad

M/S. Synergies Castinga Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another