Disposed

Ms Veena Kashyap, v. Uccha Siksha Aur Sodh Sansathan, and 4 Others

Telangana HC11 Feb 2026WP/18835/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 18835 of 2009 as infructuous after the petitioner retired from service and a similar related petition was dismissed as infructuous. The Court noted the impugned transfer was not stayed, rendering the present petition devoid of substance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous without any order as to costs.

Ms Veena Kashyap, Vs Uccha Siksha Aur Sodh… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDTN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 18835 OF 2009

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vl YS".l"^{Kqshyap,,Dio N..D.Kashyap,} {ged^about 51^{years, principal,} B.Ed.College, Dakshin Bharat Hindi prachir Slbha, Hyderab;d.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Uccha Siksha Aur Sodh Sanqlrthan, Dakshin Bharat Hindi prachar Sabha, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017, Rep by its Vice Cnanieilor.

¶13

2 Uccha siksha Aur sodh sansathan,, (post Graduate and Research lnstitute) T.Nagar, Dakshin Bharat Hindi prachir Sabha, ChennJi- Ooo OtT,nJp'6v'it6 Registrar

¶14

3 National Council for Teacher Education,, C-2l10, Safdarjung DevelopmentArea, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Dethi-16, Rep by its frleiiOdrbeciei5ry.

¶15

4 The Correspondent,, Dakshin Bharat Hindi prachar Sabha, Hyderabad 5. D.c.Prakshalu, Pricipal,, coilege of Education, Dakshin Bharat Hindi prachar Sabha, Chennai.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc.No.KaryalayNc.3l2009-10, dated 22-g-2009 issued by the Vice chancellor, Dakshin Bharat Hindi prachar sabha, chennai and its connected Proc.Ref. DBHPS/2009-10/41, issued by the Registrar, Dakshin Bhart Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the directins of the Honble court and consequenfly declare that the petitioner is

¶18

entitled to continue as principal, B.Ed. college, Hyderabad with all consequential benefits.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2,

¶20

Petition tlnderSection 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High court may be pleased suspend the operation of the impugned Proc.N o.KaryalayNc.3t2oog-10, dated 228-2009 issued by the vice chancellor, Dakshna Bharat Hindi prachar sabha, chennai and its connected proc Ref.No DBHps/20 og-10r41, issued by the Registrar, Dakshin Bharat Hindi prachar Sabha, chennai,

¶21

counsel for ther petitioners: SRr CHAYANAM RAVTNDRANATH (NONE APPEARED)

¶22

counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 ,2 and4: sRr G vENUGopAL REDDY Counsel for ther Respondent No.3: SRI T. BALAJI

¶23

counsel for the Respondent No.s: sRr s. LAKSHMTNARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

l. I I

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶26

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.t8835 of 2009

DATED: 11.02.2026

Between:

Ms. Veena Kashyap

... Petitioner

AND

tjccha Siksha Aur Sodh Sansathan, Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017, rep. by its Vice Chancellor & 4 others

¶36

... Respondents

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

No one appears for the petitioner

¶39

Reference is made to the order dated 09.06.2010 passed in the instant writ

¶40

petition along with W.P.No.29448 of 2009, an another analogous writ petition

¶41

In the present petition, the transfer of the petitioner to Chennai by the respondents was under challenge. In W.P.No.29448 of 2009, the petitioner has also sought declaration that Rule 24 of the Services Rules of Uchcha Shiksha Aur Shodh Sansthan, Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha dated 01.07.2005 is

¶42

¶43

ultra vires of Section 6 of the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Act, 1964. - Petitioner harl also assailed the decision of transfer of the petitioner dated 21.12.2009 b't an incompetent Administrative Committee. Petitioner sought to continue as l)rincipal, B.Ed. College, Dakshin Bharat l-Iindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad

¶44

Office has placed the copy of the order dated 03.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.29448 of 2009 which has been dismissed as infructuous as the petitioner has retired frorn service.

¶45

TIre present rvrit petition relates to the same petitioner'.^'fhe order of transfer imptrgned herein was not stayed. Therefore, at this point of time, the instant rvrit petition also becomes infructuous, moreover since the petitioner has also retired

¶46

Accortlingly, the instant Writ Petition is disposed of as infructuous. However, tht:re shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Misce laneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/-L. VIJAYA LAXMI STANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER

¶49

To,

¶50

1' The V'ice chance.flor, uccha siks.ha Aur s_odh sansathan, Dakshin Bharat H i n d i^p ra ch a r S a b h a, r. t t i g a r,''C I r;;i _"6"01' o:# ] "

¶51

2*3idlifl tlts,ii#,si?-'#:l?#:pfi 's^:?i,'ft ixaip,.g"fl:"1.?iix,yslBfl i.1,.,

¶52

3' The tvlember Secretary, Nationar councirfor Teacher.Edu!:ation ,, c_2t10, Safdarjuns Deveropm#,i Ar;; sri nrrriiil,i"'fil?U: New Derhi_i o. -

¶53

The correspondent,, Dakshin Bharat Hindi prachar sabha, Hyderabad

¶54

cp*l^- -

¶55

'1I \i

¶56

S^{One CC to Sri Chayanam Ravindranath, AdvocateTOPUCI} t One CC to Sri T. Balaji, Advocate TOPUCI 1^{One CC to Sri S. LakshminarayanaReddy,Advocate} [OPUC] 8^{One CC to Sri G. VenugopalReddy, Advocate} [OPUC] TJ @. I^{TwoCD Copies} BS Pf^q.

a /

/// (

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110212026

ORDER

o TA 16-
.-)
,.) ? 1 I \ $ ti]26
. .')
*
'i. -L

¶64

WP.No.18835 of 2009

¶65

DISPOSIING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶66

WITHOIJT COSTS

¶67

Lt *\rbL

Ms Veena Kashyap, v. Uccha Siksha Aur Sodh Sansathan, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Veena Kashyap, v. Uccha Siksha Aur Sodh Sansathan, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suniganti Vittalaiah Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Andromeda Sales and Distribution Private Limited Vs Union of India

Errabelli Raghupathi rao Vs R. Neela

M.B.S.Sai Vs Union of India

Gade Ramana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sankatala Poolamma Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited