Telangana High Court
WP/42427/2015 of Sadhika Begum, W/o. K.Sanjeev Kumar Vs The Government of Telangana on 30 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.42427 of 2015 DATED : 30.12.2015 Between: Sadhika Begum W/o.K.Sanjeev Kumar, Aged about 28 yrs, Occu : Guest Teacher (Bio-Sciences), KGBV, Narva R/o.Erladhinne Village, Narva Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. .. Petitioner AND The State of Telangana,
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.42427 of 2015
DATED : 30.12.2015
Between:
Sadhika Begum W/o.K.Sanjeev Kumar,Aged about 28 yrs, Occu : Guest Teacher (Bio-Sciences),KGBV, Narva R/o.Erladhinne Village, Narva Mandal,Mahaboobnagar District.
AND
.. Petitioner
The State of Telangana,Rep., by its Principal SecretarySchool Education Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others.
.. Respondents
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.42427 of 2015
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 claims to have been appointed in the year 2012 asguest teacher (Bio-Sciences) for KGBV Narva Mandal. Petitionerclaims to have been working since her appointment. In this writpetition, petitioner seeks prayer to declare the action of therespondents 3 and 4 in trying to terminate the services of the petitioneras guest teacher. Vague averments are made in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition. As seen from the representation filed by thepetitioner on 18.12.2015, even according to the reckoning of thepetitioner, she is not working since 23.11.2015. Furthermore,according to the averments in the affidavit, the 5[th] respondent isappointed as teacher. No appointment order of the petitioner is filed inthe material papers nor appointment of the 5[th] respondent ischallenged. As the relief sought in the writ petition is against “trying toterminate the services of the petitioner” no relief as sought for can begranted and writ petition cannot be entertained in anticipation oftermination.
2. Further more, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner,the status of the petitioner when appointed in the year 2012 is oncontract basis. It is not known for what period petitioner was appointedand whether subsequently, her appointment was renewed. In theabsence of proper pleadings and more particularly when there is noexpress order of termination and in anticipation of termination, no relief can be granted. The writ petition at this stage is pre-mature.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it isopen to the petitioner to pursue her grievance with the DistrictCollector in pursuant to the representation claimed to have beensubmitted by the petitioner on 18.12.2015 and the same shall beconsidered objectively notwithstanding the dismissal of the writpetition. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shallstand dismissed.
___________________
P.NAVEEN RAO, J
Date: 30[th] December, 2015Rds