Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 450 (TS)

K. Krishnaveni v. State of Telangana

2023-06-19

K.SARATH

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the records. 2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in pursuance of DSC-2003 and posted to MPPS Mominapur, Madhur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. While she was working as Secondary Grade Teacher, the respondents have issued G.O.Ms.No.317, General Administration (SPF-I) Department, dtd. 6/12/2021. The respondents have prepared seniority list of Secondary Grade Teachers and the petitioner's name was shown at Sl. No.3430 and in the said list, the teachers whose names shown at Serial Numbers i.e., 3304, 3307, 3310, 3322, 3324, 3325, 3205, 1028, 3303, 1329, 3319, 903, 2150, 2286, 2479, 3317, 2148, 3281, 2155, 2166 and 2965 are juniors to the petitioner and their seniority was counted from the date of their initial appointment, instead of their transfer to Mahaboobnagar District. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 29/12/2005 and should have been shown above their names and the petitioner would have been allotted to Ranga Reddy District, which was her first option. 3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Guideline No.27 in G.O.Ms.No.317, General Administration (SPF-1) Department, dtd. 6/12/2021, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Competent Authority on 30/12/2021. While the issue is pending before the Government, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2647 of 2022 and this Court was pleased to pass interim orders on 21/1/2022. 4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that for non-implementation of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.442 of 2022 and in the said Contempt Case, notices were issued to the respondents and when it was posted for compliance, the respondents without examining any submissions made by the petitioner in her representation and without verifying the records forwarded by the DEO's office, simply rejected the case of the petitioner for reallocation in the impugned orders on 31/3/2022. 5. 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents without verifying the seniority and without taking into account of the contention raised by the petitioner in the appeal, passed the impugned orders by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and the said action is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the records as there are number of juniors to the petitioner who were allotted and continuing as on today in Ranga Reddy District and requested to allow the Writ Petition. 6. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents, basing on the counter submits that the general cut-off for getting allotment to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District was at Sl.No.3303, whereas the petitioner was at Sl.No.3430 in the seniority list. The petitioner has given her preferences for allotment of new local cadres in the order of Ranga Reddy District and Mahaboobnagar District and she was allotted to the new local cadre of Mahaboobnagar District. Out of 21 candidates mentioned in the affidavit except 3, the remaining candidates are juniors to the petitioner and only Seven (7) juniors to the petitioner have been allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District, out of which two (2) candidates were allotted under SC/ST proportion as per guideline No.21 of the appendix to G.O.Ms.No.317, General Administration (SPF-I) Department, dtd. 6/12/2021 to Ranga Reddy District. Only five (5) candidates namely N.Rajashree, Seniority No.3205, Sk.Shaheeda Jeelaani, Seniority No.1028, T.Prasanna, Seniority No.3303, P.K.Madhusudhan Rao, Seniority No.2150 and B.Vanitha Rani, Seniority No.2148 are juniors to the petitioner in general category who have been erroneously shown as seniors and allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District and one Smt. G.Vijaya Lakshmi, Seniority No.5833 originally belongs to OC community but she was erroneously considered under SC community as her spouse belongs to SC community. 7. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that even if the juniors to the petitioner are re-allotted to other districts, the petitioner does not come into zone of consideration for getting allotment to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District as there are (21) seniors to the petitioner, who have given their preference to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District but got allotted to other districts and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8. 8. After hearing both sides and on perusing the material available on record this Court of is the considered view that after filing the Contempt Case, the respondents have passed the present impugned rejection orders in the appeal on 31/3/2022. The respondent No.2 is accepting in the counter filed on behalf all the respondents that erroneously Six (6) juniors to the petitioner namely N.Rajashree, Seniority No.3205, Sk.Shaheeda Jeelaani, Seniority No.1028, T.Prasanna, Seniority No.3303, P.K.Madhusudhan Rao, Seniority No.2150 and B.Vanitha Rani, Seniority No.2148 and Smt. G.Vijaya Lakshmi, Seniority No.5833 originally belongs to OC community but she was erroneously considered under SC community and allotted to new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District. It clearly shows that the respondent No.1 without verifying the records passed the present impugned rejection orders by disposing of appeal. This Court feels that the respondents entertaining the appeals as an empty formality and rejecting the same. The said action is arbitrary and illegal. 9. The contention of the respondents is that even if the juniors to the petitioner were re-allotted to other District, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as twenty one (21) seniors to the petitioner were allotted to other Districts. The so called twenty one (21) seniors to the petitioner have their first preference to Ranga Reddy District who go by their claim and no one questioned their allotment orders to other Districts. Now, the respondents cannot deprive the right of the petitioner as she availed her remedy of appeal and questioning the continuation of the juniors in Ranga Reddy District and rejecting the case of the petitioner on the said ground is arbitrary and illegal. 10. The above said six (6) juniors to the petitioner are continuing in Ranga Reddy District by the respondents as on today which is irregular as per the G.O.Ms.No.317, General Administration (SPF-I) Department, dtd. 6/12/2021. Therefore, the impugned rejection order is arbitrary, illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 11. In view of the above findings, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned rejection order in Memo No.Spl/Secretary Peshi/2021-198 dtd. 31/3/2022 passed by the respondent No.1 and the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotting her in the existing vacancy of Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu) (LB) in the Ranga Reddy District within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 31/3/2022 passed by the respondent No.1 and the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotting her in the existing vacancy of Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu) (LB) in the Ranga Reddy District within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.