Telangana High Court
WA/832/2022 of B. Praveen Kumar Vs Mr. P. Shivanand on 29 December 2022
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEIMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILIANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAOWRIT APPEAL NO: 832 OF 2022
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Orderdaled 2311112022 in W.P.No.197BB of 2021, on the file of the High Court.
Between:B. Praveen Kumar, S/o. Late B. Prakash, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Foreman,Telangana Government Text Book Press, Hyderabad.
...AppellanU3'd Respondent
AND
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.
1. I\ilr. P. Shivanand, S/o. P. Nagaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Foreman,Binding Section, Telangana Govt. Text Book Press, Hyderabad.Binding Section, Telangana Govt. Text Book Press, Hyderabad.
2 rhe state of retangana, Rep. by its [principat ].".H:.:"y*r:::';'"tDepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.3. The Director, Telangana Govt. Text Book Press, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.
...Respondents/Respondents ['t ]& 2
lA NO: ['t ]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 todispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order Dt.2311112022 passed inW P 19788 of2021 .
lA NO: 2 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 tosuspend the order daled. 2311112022 made in W.P.No.19788 of 2021, pendingdisposal of the writ appeal.the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the order daled. 2311112022 made in W.P.No.19788 of 2021, pendingdisposal of the writ appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. NAYAKAWADI RAMESH
Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI SRIKANTH HARIHARAN
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP FOR SERVICES - lVThe Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE [ABHINAND ][I(U]VIAFI ][SH,IVILI]AND
THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU [RAJESiIIW,\R ][RAO]Writ Appeal No.832 of 2022
JUDGMEITTi (Per Hou'bie sri Jrislice Abhirrand li,urr*rr SluruilL)
This Writ Appeal is filed, aggrieved lrv lhe orderdated 23. 1.2022 passed in W.P.No.19788 of 2O2lby the lear ned Singlc Judge2. Hearrl Mr. Nayakrvadr Ramesh, 1,,'ar-nr:il counselappearing for the appellant, Mr. Srikantl-r Ilariharan,learned litanding Counsei appealing lor thecontesting respondent and the lcarnc d CirvernmentPleader fo r Services IV, appearing for tl.rt c,fficial.s.responden 3. Learn ecl counsel appearing for the arppellanthad conter:ded that the appellant u,a:r appointed as'Deputy Fo:eman' and rvas 1>rornotcd as 'lio:e.mzLn' on02.06.2ole ; where:rs, the rcspondent l,lo.1 wasofficially ap pointed as 'l(allasi' ernci l:rte'r ltrornoted as'Computer Operator':rncl thereaftcr, as an .,\rtLst inPlate Mak ng Section and finurlly, prornoterlAS
l
'Foreman' on the same day of appellant i.e., on02.06.2016. As the appellant\[ra s working lnahigher post than that of respondent No.l, theseniority of the appellant u'as lixed over and abovethe contesting respondent No.1 and tire contestingrespondent No.1 has approachcd this Court by filingW.P.No.19788 of 2021 and contended that when theappellant and contesting respondent are promoted as'Foreman' on 02.06.20 16, thc scniority ought to havebeen fixed in accordancc ',r,ith Rule 36 (ii) and (iii) ofState Subordinate Serwicc Rules. Tl.rc learned SingleJudge has a1lor,r,ed the Writ Irctitior.r filed by thecontesting respondent No.1 u,ilhout appreciating thefact that no notice was served on the appellant.4. The learned counscl appe:rring for the appellalthad further contended that the appellant has givenaflidavit along with the present Writ Appeal statingthat he has not receivcd thc noticc in the WritPetition ald W.P.No.19788 of 2021 u'as allowed inhis absence. Thcreforc, appropriatc orcler be passedin the Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders [passed]
by the learncd Single Judge in W.P.Nc.19788 of2021, clat' cl 23.11.2022 arid allow the Writ Appealand lct thr: mattcr be remanded back to tl-tt: learnedSingle Jurige so z1s to enable the learned lSingleJudgc to I-car the irppellant before passin6; ;:rn)'finalorder in th: Writ Pctitron.5. I-carn:cl St:rnding Counsel appearinq for thecontesting respondent No. i has contendei l,hat thenotice has rcen sent bv the Court and the rlamo wasrefused b.v the appellant and contesting respondentNo. t has al;o taken up ar notice on the appellant. andthe same u as sen,e cl lrnd to that effect, he lras alsofilecl arr art krrowleclgment to demonstral.e l-hat thenotice u,as ;r'rve<l on thc appellant. Even ar; per themerits also, thc contcsl ing respondent No.1 ht,ts to betreatccl as s,rnior as a<lmittedly, the appellant as wellas contestir rg rerspondcnt No. 1 were prorrrotec itsForenran or-r L)2.06.2016 :rnd when two perllons arepromotcd a: Forem:rn, Rulc 36 (ii) and [iii) 'wi]l beholdir-rg the liekl and bv lollowing the Rule 3(, (ii) and(iii) of t he State ancl Slrbordinate Rules, the IAKS,J & RRN,Jwe 8l) )o))
contesting rcspondent No.l has to be treated assenior to the appellant. Therefore, there are nomerits in the Writ Pctition and the same is liable tobe dismissed.senior to the appellant. Therefore, there are nomerits in the Writ Pctition and the same is liable tobe dismissed.
6. This Court, having considered the rivalsubmissions made by the parties, is of theconsidered vien, that the appellant has given anaccompanying affidavit stating that no notice hasbeen ser-ved ar-rcl the order of the learned SingleJudge\\-:1S passed u,ithout hearing the appellant.Therefore, this court is of the considered view thatthe orders passed by the learned Single Ju.dge areliable to bc sct aside on the ground that theappellant was not heard before passing the finalorder. Thercforc, the orders passed by the learnedSinglcr Judgc in W.P.No. l97Ba of 2021, dated23.11.2022 zrrc set aside and the matter is remandedback to thc lcarned Single Judge so as to enable thelearned Singlc .Judge to decide the case afresh afterhearing both tl-re appcllant as well as the contestingrespondent. However, there will be Status Quo till ::5::
the learned Single Judge decides the cas,c on meritsand the learned Single Judge is also r,:quested todecicle th: Writ petition as expeditiously as possible.7' Accr'rdingly, the writ Appear is disp.sed of. NocrostsB.Asasequel, miscellaneousapolir:ertionspending, if any, rn this Writ Appeal, shall stanclclosecl.
SI]/. K. SAILHII)E:PUTY REGIRAR//TRUE COPY/i:iEoTloFFICE R
To,
1The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, State of Telangana,Secretariat, F yderabad.Secretariat, F yderabad.2The Director, Telangana Govt. Text Book Press, l/int C,;r:rpound, Hyderabad3One CC to Stl.l NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Advocate [oF'l-lc]4Two CCs to [,iP ]for Services-lV, High Court for the Stat: of Telangana at3One CC to Stl.l NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Advocate [oF'l-lc]4Two CCs to [,iP ]for Services-lV, High Court for the Stat: of Telangana atHyderabad. [t)UTl5One CC to Slll SRIKANTH HARIHARAN Advocate [Ot'l-lc]6Two CD Copi:sCHRGJPa5One CC to Slll SRIKANTH HARIHARAN Advocate [Ot'l-lc]6Two CD Copi:sCHRGJPa HIGH COUIIT
DATED:2911212022
JUDGMEN'I'W.A.No.832 o12022
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALWITHOUT C:OSTS
[q\a](,a^)3(,a^)3
i [il ][-J S 14]oI;\r2 3 JAil 7t7l