The State of Telangana Vs Siddharth

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred^{Againstthe OrderDated} 3111012023, in W.P.No.24623 of 2023 on the^{file of the High Court.}

¶12

Between:

¶13

The State of Telangana, neb by its Secretary Government, Higher^Education Department, Hyderabad.

¶14

Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of^Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶15

Conespondence of Abhyudaya Oriental^{Evening College,Jiyaguda,} Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶16

.....APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

AND

¶18

Siddharth, S/o Late Bharat Bhushan, Aged 34^{years,Rl/o H No 169654111113'} Sarojini Nagar, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana 500036.

¶19

.....RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶20

I.A.NO:3 OF 2025

¶21

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the order date d 31 I I Ol2O23^passed in W.P.No.^{24623 of 2023.}

¶22

Counsel for Appellants : ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶23

Counsel for Respondent: SRI AVADESH NARAYAN^SANGHI

¶24

w NO:389 OF 2025

¶25

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Prefened Against Order Dated 2210212023 in W.t).No.42712 of 2022. on the file of the High Court.

¶26

Between:

¶27

The State^,tf Telangana, Rep by its Secretary Government, Higher Education Departmert, Hyderabad.

¶28

Commissic,ner of Collegiate Education, Govemment of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶29

9onespondence of Abhyudaya Oriental Evening College, Jiyaguda Hyderabad Telangana.

¶30

.....APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶31

AND

¶32

Siddharth, S/o Late Bharat Bhushan, Aged 34 years, R/o H.No.169654t111t3, Sarojini Nagar, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad Telangana 500036.

¶33

.....RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER

¶34

LA.lfO;2 OF 2025

¶35

Petition urrder section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl 'in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the ordr:r dated 22.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.42712 of 2022.

¶36

Counsel for Appellants : ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶37

Counsel for Respondents : AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI

¶38

The Court made the following COMMON JUDGEMENT: -

¶39

t

¶40

,:.-., , -\

¶41

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELfu\GANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶42

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI^{APARESTIKUMARSINGH} AI\D

¶43

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDTN

I.A.No.1 of 2025

in/and

DATED : 02.03.2026

WRIT APPEAL No. 386 of 2025

¶48

Between:

¶49

The State of Telangana and two others

Appellants

AND

Siddharth

Respondent

WRIT APPEAL No.389 of 2025

¶55

Between:

¶56

The State of Telangana and two others

Appellants

Ai\D

Siddharth

Respondcnt

Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special^{Government Pleader}

¶62

/

¶63

attached to the Office of the^{learned AdditionalAdvocate}

¶64

General appears for appellants/State.

¶65

2 HCJ [-\iirS. J) & Oilil. i \t"'.A.Nos.386 and 389 ci 2025

¶66

Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, [earned Senior Counsel represenl.s Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for responde nt/writ petitioner.

¶67

Writ Appeal No.386 of 2025 arises out of the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in writ Petition No.24623 of 2a23 whereby the learned writ court set aside the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Coltegiate Educaticn, Hyderabad, rejecting the request of the respondent for comllassionate appointment, in pursuance of the directions issued b'/ the learned writ Court vide order dated 22.02.2023 in writ Petition No.42712 of 2022. This writ Appeal suffers from the delay of 483 days.

¶68

Writ Appeal No.389 of 2025 raises a challenge to the order derted 22.02.2023 passed by the learned writ court in Writ P,:tition No.42712 of 2022 and the order dated 22.01.2(t25 passed in Review I.A.No.l of z0z4 in writ Petition No.42712 of 2022 filed by the appellant State on 22.03.2(t24. This writ Appeal suffers from the detay of 735 days.

¶69

I

¶70

HCJ^tAKrS. J!^{& CIIII.J} 3 tV.A.\os.386 and^{389 of 2025}

¶71

I ,i / v t

¶72

In both the^{instant writ Appeals, [,A.No.l of 2025 has} been filed by^{the appelLant State for condonationof delayto} explain the circumstances.

¶73

According to^{the appellants, after the order dated} 22.02.2023^{passedby the learned writ Court in Writ Petition} No.427 12 of^{2022, the Election Code for Assemblyelections} came into effect^{from 09.10.2023ttll declarationof resultson} 05.12.2023^{in which many staff got draftedfor election duty'} Thereafter, there^{was change in the Government counsels} which resulted^{in lack of communication. Furtherdelay took} place. The respondent^{pursued contempt case No.2816 of} 2023 frled on^{27.12.2023 in which noticeswere issued'On} 17.04.2023, the^{Commissioner of Cottegiate Education had} passed an order^{rejecting the case of the petitioner in terms of} G.O.Ms.No.214,^{Generat Administration (Ser.A)Department,} dated 08.05.2001^{and G.O.Ms.No.215,General Administration} (SER.C) Department, dated^{08'05'2001,and Memo} No.757lC El All20t7^{dated 16.02.2018, as the claim of}

¶74

compassionate^{appointment of the petitioner was not as per}

¶75

HUj ,.14I J. u' u v-'. " - 4 ',i^{.{.\os.356 ar<i 3S9 oi2O2c}

¶76

rules. This^{was made the subject matter of challenge in writ} Petition^{No.24623 0f 2023 0n 04.09.2023. The said writ} Petition was^{disposed of on 31.10.2023settingaside'the} impugned^{order dated17 .04.2023with a direction to the} appellants^{to issue appointmentorder to the respondentin a} suitable llost^{on compassionategrounds in any of the} vacancies^{shown in} Para^{15 of the counter-affidavitof} appellant^{Nos.1 and 2 within the stipulated period'}

¶77

-1

¶78

Lea.rned^{counsel for the appellants submits that after the} Election code^{was lifted, Revierv I.A.No.l of 2024 in writ} Petition^{lllo.427t2 of 2022was filed on 28'03 '2024which has} been dismissed^{by the learned Court on the groundthat the} order dated^{22.02.2023 in writ Petition No.42712 0f 2022 has} been acted^{upon and implemented. Moreover, the order of} rejectiorr dated^{17.04.2023 passed in compliance thereto} became subject^{matter of writ Petition No.24623 of 2023} which tras been^{disposedof on 31.10.2023with a direction to} the appellants^{to issueappointmentorder to the respondent on} compassionate^{groundsin a suitable post. Therefore, the}

¶79

HCJ (AIirS, J) 36 cMM, J W.A.Nos.386 and 339 ol 2025

¶80

5

¶81

I I2

¶82

Review I.A. was not maintainable. Both the Writ Appeals were filed on 28.03.2025 which has entailed the delay ot'483 and 735 days respectively. Learned counsel lor thc appcllants submits that if the delay is not condoned and the mattcrs are not heard on merits, the consequences of the orders Lrnder appeals granting compassionate appointment would be ihi' and wide.

¶83

It is submitted that the learned writ Court thoLrgh in the first occasion referred to memo bearing No.757lOE/A/2017 dated 16.02.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 27 .03.2006, erroneously recorded that the appointments have been made on compassionate grounds even after issuance of the said order and thus, the action of the appellants was discriminatorv and arbitrary. [t is submitted that if the orders under appcals ar; not interfered with, several claims which are not otherrvise in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.3S dated 27.03.2006 and rnerno bearing No.757lCElN20l7 dated 16.02.2018 woulci be entertained by the learned writ Court. He has pointed out to para 6 of the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.AZl lZ

¶84

6 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.A.Nos.386 and 389 of 2O2.c -

¶85

1 \

¶86

of ?.022 wherein it has been stated that there was a ban on conrpass ionate appointment as per the aforesaid

¶87

G.O.lt4s. No.3 5 dated 27 .03.2006 and Memo dated 16.02.201 8 and hen<)e, compassionate appointments in similar cases have been rejccted as in the case of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 23.09.2022. Therefore, the delay may be condoned and the appeals may be lreard on merits as there are good grounds tO SUi-:Cer:d.

¶88

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has strong objcctions to the prayer for condonation of delay. It is subnritte,d that the sequence of dates and events shows conrplet: lack of interest and diligence on the part of the deparLrncrrt to pursLte the matter if the appellants were aggricved on any valid grounds with the order of the learned writ.^(lourt. It is submitted that the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned writ Court in Writ Petition No.42712 of 2022.w;2rS corrrplied with on 17.04.2023 by rejecting the case of tlre respondent and subsequent challenge thereto was deciclcd in lbvour of the respondent by order dated 31.10.2023

¶89

f

¶90

HCJ^(-{KrS, Ji & G}.I}t. J W.A.l(os.386 and 389 of²⁰²⁵

¶91

7

¶92

{ (

¶93

in Writ Petition No.24623 of^{2023. The Review I.A. has been} frled only thereafter on 28.03.2024^{whichshows negligence} and lapse on the part of the department^{in pursuing the matter.} Therefore, I.A.No.1 of 2025 in both the^{instant appeals may be} rejected.

¶94

We have heard the learned counsel^{for the parties. We} have taken note of the sequence of^{dates referredto on behalf} of the appellants to explain the^{delay. On a perusal thereof,it} is obvious that if the department^{was aggrieved by the order} dated 22.02.2023 passed in Writ^{Petition No.42712 of 2022, it} could have sought review thereof^{insteadof complyingwith} the same by passing the order^{dated 17.04.2023 i.e., after two} months. Even then, when the order^{dated17.04-2023 was} under challenge in Writ Petition^{No.24623 of 2023, the} department did not wake up to^{seek review of the order dated} 22.02.2023. ln the meanwhile, writ^{Petition No.427l2 0f 2022} was allowed in favour of the respondent^{by directing the} appellants to issue appointment order to^{the petitioneron} compassionate grounds in a suitable^{post. It is almostafter}

¶95

6 \i...\os.386 and nu r.a^is. J, d u-!r.!:. 389 of 2O25J

¶96

,i t \

¶97

more than one year, the fleview I.A. was filed. In such circums;tances, the explanation furnished by the appellants does not show any sufficient cause for condonation of huge inordin;ate delay of 483 days and 735 days in preferring these

¶98

Writ Appeals.

¶99

V/e are therefore not inclined to condone the delay. As such, I.A.No.I of 2025 in both the instant Writ Appeals filed for condonation of delay is rejected.

¶100

I l. Consequently, both the instant Writ Appeals are dismissod. However, it is left open for the appellants to take the plezi of G.O.Ms.No.3S dated 27.03.2006 and memo dated L6.02.2t)18 in the claims arising in future by any such person.

¶101

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶102

SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY//

¶103

SECTION OFFICER

¶104

To

¶105

Two CC'r; to ADVOCATE GENERAL, H igh Court State of Telanana at Hyderabad .touTl 2. One CC 1o SRI AVADES H NARAYAN SANGHI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD^(]opies SA BS

State of Telanana at

t i

HIGH COURT

DATED t02,t03l201i

,tD*
THE S
1 c ffim Wfi

t

¶111

COMMON,JUDGMENT