Dismissed¶64

Kowdi Saiyanna Shashikala v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Jan 2026WP/27267/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal-order judgment: Telangana High Court (07-01-2026) dismissed W.P. No. 27267 of 2025, Kowdi Saivanna Shashikala v. State of Telangana and others (including P.Venkateshwar Goud), as withdrawn with liberty to revive, without costs. Underlying grievance left undecided: promotion of Respondent No.4 to Administrative Officer (Serial No. 8, ROC No. 1366/2025 - C.1, dated 04-09-2025) by Respondent No.3, alleged violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. No cases cited; value is procedural only.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive if the petitioner's cause still survives; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions directed to stand closed. ¶64

Kowdi Saiyanna Shashikala Vs The state of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[^348e I

¶2

IN THE^{HIGHCOURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH^DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^P.SAMKOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{SUDDALA CHALAPATHIRAO}

¶7

WRIT PETI TION NO: 27267 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kowdi Saivanna Shashikala,^{Wo B.Noel Milton,Age: 54 years' Occ: Govt Employee} H.No.112,' Gun Rock, Near^{Water Tank,Tirumalagiri,WC: Secunderabad,} Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Administration Principal Secretary,^{Law Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Registrar^{(Administration),High Court of Te{angana' Hyderabad,} Telangana.

¶14

The Principal^{District & SessionsJudge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District'} Telangana.

¶15

P.Venkateshwar Goud,^{Sl/o Not known} b^{the petitioner' Age. not known, Occ.} Govt Emolovee Senior Superintendent^{Principal Districtarid SessionsCourt,} Medchal-MalkaigiriDistrict'Kushaiguda'Telangana

¶16

...RESpoNDENTS

¶17

Petition under Arlicle 226 of^{the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the afFrdavit^{filed therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,^{moreparticularly one} in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare that^{the actionof Respondents 3 in} granting promotion to Respondent ltlo.4 to the^post of Administrative^Officervide (Serial No. 8) in ROC No. 1366/2025 - C.1 Dated: 04-09-2025^{is illegal, arbitrary,} and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution^{of lndia,and} consequently set aside the said^promotion as null and^{void, Directthe} Respondents^'l to 3 to consider and promote the^petitioner to^{the postof}

¶18

Administrative Officer, with all consequential service benefit; including^fixation of seniority,^pay, and allowances-

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the ci^r umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court mE ) be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to furnish a copy of the^proceeditt, s bearing Dis. No. 301712025, dated 02-07 -2025, relating to the^promotion of^I lespondent No.4, to the Petitioner forthwith, in the interest of^justice and fair^play.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci1 umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to stayisuspend/keep in abeyance the^proceedings of Respond: rt No.4 in (serial No. 8) ROC 136612025. C-1, Dt. 04-09-2025, insofar as they rel€t : to the promotion of Respondent No.4 to the^post of Chief Administrative Offic€ ', and consequently direct the respondents not to confer any further service ber efits or seniority on Respondent No.4.

¶23

lA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci r umstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to Direct the Respondents to^promote the Petitioner to the^post ol )hief Administrative Officer / Administrative Officer, as applicable,^pending dispose of the Writ Petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. P. RADHIKA SHARMA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES - ll

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI MANOJ REDDY^I :ESHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

TN THE HTGTI COI-IR.T FORTIIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I'DEIIABAD

¶30

THE IIONOUiIAIILE SRI JTTSTICE P.SAM KOSHY Ai',it)