SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 70102

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Shaik Amjad – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 6260/2023



HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.6260 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I I appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

“…to issue any Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 03.07.2017, 17.02.2021 as there is a clear vacancy in 2nd and 4th respondents office as Junior Assistant post even after representation made by the petitioner to the respondents are not issuing the regular post as a Junior Assistant in the above offices which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 03.07.2017, 17.02.2021 in the light of the GORt No.181 dated 14.03.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.70 dated

11.02.2008 and pass such other order…”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the father of the petitioner was a PET Teacher at ZPHS Ramachandrapuram, Medak District and died while in service on 29.06.2002. Thereafter the petitioner herein was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the existing vacancy at ZPHS Rudraram on compassionate grounds on 15.11.2005. The petitioner made a representation dated 03.07.2017 to the 1st respondent for transfer to the petitioner’s native District Hyderabad and 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.181, PR & RD (Pts.iv) Department dated 14.03.2017, transferred the petitioner’s services from Medak District to Hyderabad District. Thereafter the petitioner made representation dated 17.02.2021 to respondent No.2 to transfer the petitioner from Medak District to Hyderabad permanently according to the G.O.Ms.No.70 dated 11.02.2008 where it is clearly mentioned that the employees who are appointed under the compassionate grounds in a cadre to which they are not local be given an opportunity to opt for transfer to their local cadre. However, the respondents have not considered the petitioner’s representation though there is a vacant post for Junior Assistant. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in spite of several representations made by the petitioner dated 03.07.2017 and 17.02.2021 to the respondents herein to consider the petitioner’s candidature for transfer of petitioner’s services from Medak District to Hyderabad District, since there is a clear vacancy in the 2nd and 4th respondents office to the post of Junior Assistant, no action had been initiated by the respondents as on date.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2021 being acknowledged by the office of the 2nd respondent herein and an endorsement also made on the said representation but however, there had been no action on the said representation. Learned counsel further submits that the representation dated 03.07.2017 addressed to the 1st respondent had been acknowledged by the office of the 1st respondent way back in the year 2017, but however, the request of the petitioner for Transfer/Absorption in the post of Junior Assistant in the office of The Commissioner, RD / Commissioner, PR & RE, under DR vacancy had not been considered by the respondents, even as on date.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth by the petitioner’s representation dated 03.07.2017 addressed to the 1st respondent herein and the representation dated 17.02.2021 addressed to the 2nd respondent herein, within a reasonable pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top