Telangana High Court
WP/3315/2022 of Smt. Korsa Aruna Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others on 29 December 2023
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO: 3315 OF 2022 Between: Smt. Korsa Aruna, D/o.Gopaiah, Age. 35 years, Occ.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION NO: 3315 OF 2022
Between:
Smt. Korsa Aruna, D/o.Gopaiah, Age. 35 years, Occ. School Assistant(Engish), Present working at ZPHS Venkatapuram, Venkatapuram Mandal,Mulugu District.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, School EducationDepartment, Secretariat, HyderabadDepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad
2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Government ofTelangana, 1st Floor ['C' ]Block, Saifabad, Hyderabad.Telangana, 1st Floor ['C' ]Block, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
3. The District Educational Officer, Khammam District, Khammam.
4. The Diskict Educational Officer, fVlulugu District, Mulugu.
.,.RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an order or direction a writ more particularly one in nature of Writof Mandamus declare the impugned Proc. No. ES/SC/KHiMULU/SCAS/0135,dated 22.12.2021 issued by the respondent No.3 allotting the petitioner to MuluguDistrict contrary to the option exercised to Bhadradri-Kothagudem Diskict withoutcorrecting the seniority list as per the Telangana State and Subordinate ServiceRules, 1996 and placing [juniors ]over and above the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary,discriminatory, unjust, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of lndia andcontrary to the G.O.Ms.No.317 General Administrative Department, dated06.12.2021 and consequential Memo No.1655/5PF'l 120215 dated 22.12.2021 anddeclare that the same as bad-in-law and consequently dlrect the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by folrowing the seniority as per DSc 2012 inthe cadre of Schoor Assistant (Engrish) Agency Area and ailot the petitioner inBhadradri Kothagudem District.Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to directthe respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by folowing the seniority asper DSC 2012 in the cadre of schoor Assistant (Engrish) Agency Area and effectthe transfers in allotting the petitioner to Bhadradri Kothagudem District bydisposing appear fired by the petition er on 24.12.2021 pending disposar of theabove writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SyAMALA RAVTNDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES_I
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
UIRIT PETITION No,3315 of2022
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:
Aggrieved by the action of the 3.d respondent in issuing theproceedings No.trS/ SC/ KH / MULU/ SCAS/ 0 1 35, dated 22. 12.2O2 1, dulyproceedings No.trS/ SC/ KH / MULU/ SCAS/ 0 1 35, dated 22. 12.2O2 1, dulyallotting the petitioner to new local cadre - Mulugu District from theerstwhile local cadre - Khammam Drstrict, contrary to [he optionerstwhile local cadre - Khammam Drstrict, contrary to [he optionexercised to Bhadradri Kothagudem District, the present writ petition ishled.hled.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri S. Ravinder Reddy,learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the causein the present writ petition does not survive lor adjudication-
3. Recording the aforesaid submission, the Writ Petition is dismissedas infructuous Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Nocosts SD/. MOHD. [SANAULLAH ANSARI]ASSISTAN\RE9STRAR/ITRUE COPY'I 4,/SECTION [OFFICER]
To,1 one CC to Sri [Syamala Ravinder ][Reddy' ][Advocate ][tOPt]gl ][,],. Y')JE EE.'i""cP [i; ][s"*ii"i-i'-Hish ][court ][for the ][state ][of ][relansana ][aI]Hyderabad IOUTI3. Two CD [CoPles]TJGJ\j<- HIGH COURT
DATED:2911212023
ORDER
WP.No.3315 of 2022
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONAS INFRUCTUOUSWITHOUT COSTS.
\
1[t\][E ][STAIA]o(d;,\otl 1 [ttB ][2[?(],: ios,/**.-. .,4',i)E9F,t' [F9u.]