The High Court · 2025

(Amended Grounds as per C.O. dI. 1710212025. Vide lA. No. 3 of 2025)on the file of the High Court. Between:

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prinqipal Secretary, School Education, Secretariat Buildingbf State of Telangana, Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education' Telangana, Hyderabad' 3. Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad. 4. The District Educational Officer, Nagarkurnool District. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 AND '1. K.Yadagiri, S/o. Buchaiah, aged 50 years, Occ. Hindi Teacher, Rlio- H.No.13- 77, Laxilti i\agar, Market Yaid, Nagar Kurnool (Village and Mandal), Mahbubnagar District, State of Telangana. ...RESPONDENT/PETTTIONER

2. Sri Vani Vidyalayam, Rep. by its correspondent, Nagar Kurnool, Mahbubnagar District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased lt is therefore prayed that this Honble court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in wP No.19615 ot 201s dated 2610912022 and review orcers in lA. No. 1 of 2023 dated 2510712024 during the pendency of the appeal. (lnterim Prayer is amended as per c.o. dt. 1zto2l2o2s Vide tA No 3 of 2025) Counsel for the Appeltant: SRt G. PRASANTH, ASST. Gp FOR SERVTCES I Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. K. KIRAN MAYEE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI p. RAJASEKHAR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.9O of 2o25 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul): Sri G. Prasanth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services I, for the appellants and Ms' Kiran Mayee' learned counsel for respondent No' 1/writ petitioner'

2. With the consent, finallY heard This Intra-court appeal assails the order dated a.) 26-09-2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.19615 of 2015. The admitted facts between the parties are that the writ 4. petition was filed by respondent No' 1 to declare the inaction of appellant No.3 in approving the proposal dated NIL-10-2013 in Rc.No.34 of 2Ol3 submitted by respondent No'2 herein' The case of respondent No'1 was that he was working 5. with respondent No.2-Institution since 1988' Respondent No' 1 prayed for absorbing him against a post which receives grant-in- aid from the Government' The proposal was made by respondent No.2-Institution dated NIL' 1O-2013 which was I 2 pending consideration before appellant No.4. Since appellant No.4 had not [aken arry decision on the proposal dated NIL_ 10 20 13, the insrant writ petition was hled.

6. The aprpellalts filed counter in the writ petition and the principal starLrl therein was that there existed a ban because of which the claim of absorption and recomme ndation of respondent. No.2 was not considered. Learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions and after consrdering the previous roun,l of litigation assailing ban, u.hich t.ravelled to Supreme Oor,.rt, opined that there existed no ban . Learned Single Judge directed the appellalts to approrre the proposal of respondent No 2 dated NIL-10-2013 in Rc.No.34 of 2013 within three weeks. 7 . Learnerl counsel for the appeilants raise,l singular contention. He submits that the appellants, under the impression th eLt there existed a ban, did not consider the recommendation of respondent No.2. Since ban does r-rot exist in vieu, of order of this Court and disposal of SLF, at best, directions coul,l have been issued to take a decisron on the proposal of respondent No.2 within stipulated time. Learned Single Judge u'as not justified in approving the prc,posal and therefore, to that extent, interference may be made. I ( 7 3 Learned counsel for respondent No.l supported the

8. impugned order and submits that no fault can be found in the impugned order because the only defense taken by the appellants in their counter before the iearned Single was relating to the ban.

9. No other Point is Pressed In view of the findings given by the iearned Single Judge

10. in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, it is clear that ban has lost its significance and. was no more in operation. Thus, singular reason for not considering the recommendation of respondent No.2, based on a non-existing ban or the ban which pales into insignificance, carnot be a reason to deprive respondent No' 1 from right of consideration. However, we find substance in the a-rgument of learned counsel for the appellants that if ban could not have been a reason for non-consideration, the direction could have been issued only to consider respondent No'l for absorption which was essentially an administrative decision to be taken. In our view, exercise of absorption is essentially a managerial/ administrative fucntion which needs to be taken on relevant parameters by the concerned administrative authority. It was not open to the writ Court to issue direction for approval 4 of the proposal which is yet to be considered by appellant No.4 on rts own merlts 1 1. Resuitantly, while upholding the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, we deem it propr:r to modify paragraph No.13 of the impugned order by directing that it will be the duty ,;f appellant No.4 to take a decision on aforesaid proposal within two months from the date of communication of copy of this orrler. The said consideration sha11 be as on the date proposal u'as made. The outcome shall be communicated to respondent No 1

12. With aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits of t.he case, the Writ Appea-l is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Interlc,cutory applications, if any pending, shali also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO INT REGISTRAR t: $e.not't oFFtcER To, District. Mdhbubnaqai' District, State of Telangana. lK.Yadaoiri.S/o.Buchaiah,aged50years,Occ.HindiTeacher,R/oHNo13- ' Z: liiili i\iqli il/irxet Yaio, Nagar Kurnool (Village and Mrtndal), z. tne ioiresfionrlent, Sri Vani Vidyalayam, Nagar Kurnool, Mahbubnagar s. iwo Ccs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the State oi Telangana. 4. bne CC to Ms. K. KIRAN MAYEE, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI P. RAJASEKHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies touTl BN LS ry. HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 JUDGMENT WA.No.90 ot 2025 1--.' ,.1 -" -; ;'..+' ') 11 ir ,; ri5 * + r'l PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q r/1I