Telangana High Court
WP/25387/2005 of Smt.T.A.Ashalatha, Vs The Secretary, A.P.Social Welfare Residential on 29 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.25387 of 2005 Date:29.12.2005 Between: Smt.T.A.Ashalatha, w/o K.Ajay Kumar, Aged about 35 years, Junior Lecturer in English, A.P.Social Welfare Residential Junior College, Polasanipalli, West Godavari District. …. Petitioner A n d The
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.25387 of 2005
Date:29.12.2005
Between:
Smt.T.A.Ashalatha, w/o K.Ajay Kumar,Aged about 35 years, Junior Lecturer in English,A.P.Social Welfare Residential Junior College,Polasanipalli, West Godavari District.
A n d
The Secretary, A.P.Social WelfareResidential Education Institutions Society, (Regd.)Hyderabad and another .
…. Petitioner
… Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.25387 of 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Petitioner is working as Junior Lecturer in English in the A.P.Social WelfareResidential Junior College, Polasanipalli in West Godavari District. She states thather husband is lecturer in Telugu in Nagarjuna University and is residing atVijayawada. Pleading that her in-laws are old and bed-ridden and that her childrenneed her personal care, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent to transfer her to a residential collage at Vijayawada, where there exists a clearvacancy. Through orders dated 30.6.2005, the first respondent retained thepetitioner at the existing place, making a reference to the alleged request of thepetitioner for retention. The petitioner challenges the same.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for therespondents.
Petitioner has been working at various places in the state ever since herappointment in the year 1999. She has filed a letter issued by the NagarjunaUniversity, certifying that her husband is working as Telugu Lecturer in UniversityCollege and that the said post is non-transferable. Petitioner states that she nevermade representation for retention at the existing place and, on the other hand,places before this Court a copy of the representation made by her requesting therespondents to post her at Vijayawada.
The impugned order proceeded as though petitioner wanted retention. To that extentit cannot be found fault with. If the emphasis of the petitioner is to transfer her toVijayawada and if there is clear vacancy at Vijayawada, there is no reason why therespondents shall not consider the same, in proper perspective. It is not in disputethat the policy of the Government also is to ensure, as far as possible, that thespouses are posted at the same place.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the firstrespondent to consider the matter afresh and in case there exists a clear vacancy atVijayawada, to take necessary steps, for transferring the petitioner and post her,within a period of six weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________
29.12.2005.