Telangana High Court
WA/2559/2005 of B.V.B. Subba Rao, Vs The Director of School Education, on 30 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT APPEAL NO.2559 OF 2005. DATED: 30-12-2005 Between B.V.B.Subba Rao son of Sitaramaiah, Aged about 64 yrs, r/o D.No.13-2-2, Tadepallivari street, Bapatla, Guntur district. ….Appellant And 1. The Director of
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
AND
THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU
WRIT APPEAL NO.2559 OF 2005.
DATED: 30-12-2005
Between
B.V.B.Subba Rao son of Sitaramaiah,Aged about 64 yrs, r/o D.No.13-2-2,Tadepallivari street, Bapatla, Guntur district.
And
….Appellant
1. The Director of School EducationGovernment of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents
JUDGMENT(Per Sri B.Prakash Rao, J)
Heard both sides and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken upfor disposal.
The writ petitioner who is the appellant and employee of the respondentsherein, sought a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not approving the petitioner’s period of service from 12-09-1978 to 17-09-1979(1 year 6 days) as aided service is illegal and arbitrary in spite of the fact thatthe earlier order passed by this Court allowing the writ petition in W.P.No.22013of 2002, dated 03-11-2004.
The learned single Judge after contest and taking into consideration theobjections raised on behalf of the respondents and especially in the absence ofany record in support of petitioner’s claim, dismissed the writ petition observingthat if the petitioner had any grievance about the action of the respondents innot treating his service from 12-09-1978 to 17-09-1979, he ought to have raised an objection at the relevantpoint of time.
Page 1 of 2
After hearing the counsel on either side for some time, it is representedby the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already filed acomprehensive representation on 06-06-2005 before the 1[st] respondent pointingout all the facts and circumstances and also on what basis, he is entitled to forsuch period to be treated as in service. In view of the same, we do not think itappropriate to go into the merits of the case. It would suffice in the interest ofjustice to direct the 1[st] respondent to consider the said representation on meritsin accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of four weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notice andopportunity to the appellant.
Subject to the above, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.
----------------------------
B.PRAKASH RAO, J
Hsd
-------------------------------
G.YETHIRAJULU, J
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…