Telangana High Court
WP/17991/2006 of R. Ratna Swamy, Vs The Director of Collegiate Education, on 22 December 2006
SHRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17991 OF 2006 Dated 22nd December, 2006 Between: R.Ratna Swamy … Petitioner And The Director of Collegiate Education, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 17991 OF 2006Dated 22nd December, 2006Between:R.Ratna Swamy … PetitionerAndThe Director of Collegiate Education,Government of A.P., Hyderabad andothers. …Respondents.
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.
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned GovernmentPleader and Shri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned counsel forrespondent No.3.
The petitioner claiming to be the Correspondent of Arts,Science and Commerce College, Velgode in Kurnool District filedthis writ petition questioning the proceedings dated 31.7.2006. It isthe case of the petitioner that on the ground that 3[rd] respondent wasnot discharging the responsibility of Superintendent of the College,memo was issued on 18.6.2005 instructing him not to attend to theduties attached to the post of Superintendent and not to open thecovers/letters addressed to the Principal/Correspondent of theinstitution. Aggrieved by the same, 3[rd] respondent has approachedthe second respondent – Regional Joint Director of CollegiateEducation, Kadapa, who after issuance of prior notice has passedthe impugned order.
In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is statedthat there was a change in correspondentship and orders werepassed on 21.4.2005 approving the candidature of oneRamalakshmamma as correspondent in the place of the petitioner. The same is disputed and is pending adjudication before the firstrespondent. Though it is the case of the petitioner that as thepetitioner neither was dismissed nor removed, no interference iscalled for by the Regional Joint Director, at this stage. But,however, a reading of the impugned order makes it clear that thesaid order is nothing but an order of termination. Further it is statedin the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent that the post of Superintendent is admitted to grant-in-aid. The RegionalDirector has issued the impugned proceedings not to take any stepsas much as the dispute with regard to Correspondentship ispending before the Director of Collegiate Education. In that view ofthe matter, I do not find any illegality, which warrants interference bythis court.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordinglydismissed. No costs.
_____________________
22.12.2006
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.
VR