High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedtoissuea\vrt,l-derordirectionespeciallyoneinthenatur'?ofwritof mandamus declaring tnt a) proceedrngs isst led illegal and arbttrarY N o ES/ES/rr/A/WANA/S EG R 16532, dl.21 - 1 2-2021 is b) Declare that the re]e:t on order issued in Memo No ' Spl./Secreta rylleshi/2021- 947, d1.28.02 2023 r; rlleg al and arbitrary c) Petitioner is entitk:d to be allotted to Ranga Reddy District lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition unde- fiect on 151 CPC praying that in the circunrsta tces stated in the affidavit filed in s; .rcport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondenis o re-allot the petitioner to Ranga Reddy District by suspending the proceerlirrgs in No. ES/ES/MAMANA/SEGR/6532 ' dt.71-12-2021 and Memo No, Spl' / S.-.cretarypesni t 2021-947, d1.28.02.2023, pendrng disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petrti,cnt'r: SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel for the Resp,cnrlents: AGP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the follcwing: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.14121 oF 2023 ORDER Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The oetitioner filed the writ oetition seekinq the followinq relief : "... to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that a) proceedings issued in No.ES/ES/MA/WANA/ SEGR/ 6532, dt.2l-L2-2021 is illegal and arbitrary. b) Declare that the rejection order issued in Memo No.Spl./Secretarypeshi/202 1 -947, dt.28.02. 2023 is itlega I and arbitrary. c) Petitioner is entitled to be allotted to Ranga Reddy District. d) And to pass.... ".

3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 26.12.2005. Respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 21.L2.2021 to the petitioner allotting her to Wanaparthy District without following 2 SN. ] \\P l1[ l ]0ll seniority anc that several irregularities had ta l'' en place in allotting thr: teachers to different districts. The letitioner became jun or and all the candidates who were trans'erred on inter distri,:t tra nsfers were shown as seniors to petition':r' 3(i).Itis;l'r-rtherthecaseofthepetitionerthat:hepetitioner submitted a rr:tresentation dated 24.77.2022 tc' tht: rel;pondents requesting th,: respondent to allot Ranga Reddy t)lstrict to the petitioner, as; ler the seniority list but the responCenl:s did not consider the riilr're. Aggrieved by the same, the p'etit oner filed W.P. No. .1,11 6l of 2022 and this Court vide orrler dated 14.12.2022 d rected the respondents to consider and pass appropriat.e or,Jers. The 1st respondent rejected tl-re case of the petitioner vide its orders dated 28.02'2023' Aggrieved by the proceedings; daled 2!.L2.2021 issued by the respon'Jent No'3 and Memo dened 28.02.2023 issued by the 1"t respoldent, the petitioner ll,prroached the Court by filing the prtrsent writ petition.

4. PERL'SED T E RECO RD 3 SN, J wP l4l2l 2021 The imo uoned Proceedinos No.ES,/ ES/ MA/ (A) WANA/SE GR/6532, dated2L .L2.20 21 of the resDo n No.3 is e racted he reu n der: Government of Telangana Department of scHool EDUCATION Proceedings oF District Educational Officer Mahabubnagar Proc.No.ES/ES/MA/WANA/SEGR/6532, dated2l.t2.2o2l Sub: The Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of District Recruitment) Order 2018 - Organization of Local Cadres - Allotment of persons to New Local Cadre - Orders - Issued Ref: 1. G.O.Ms.No.317 GA (SpF) Dept., dated 06.12.2021. ORDER In pursuance of the provisions contained in paragraph 4 of the Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) order, 2018, the order and Guidelines issued in the reference 2nd cited and the allotment made by the Committee authorized by the Government, the following allotment is ordered. Employee Name Employee ID EmployeeMobileNumber: 949O146L31 Designation 7t29OO6 : i : SANDYARANI MALARAJU Secondary Grade Teacher (MPP/zPP) (Tetugu) Erstwhile Local Cadre : Allotted New Local Cadre : Mahabubnagar Wanaparthy You are hereby directed to report to your new local cadre mentioned above within 3 days from issue of orders. USHA RANI AGGADI 4 SN, ] \\ P 14121 2021 District Ed uc;:tior al Officer, N al- a:ubnagar' To The Individu a I cc ncerned. (B) 'The lm DU ned Mem No. Sol/S ecreta r Pes 202L-947 dated 28.0 .202 of her s ond ent No.1 is extracted her eunder: Government of Telangana DePartment of SCHOOL EDUCATION Memo l.Jo.liol/Secretary Peshil2O2T-9411 dat'rd 23 02 2023 Sub: Pr<:sidential Order 2018 - Allocation of lo< al cadres' p\l)peal received - (orders of disposal of zrppe'al issued - Fiog . Ref 1 G.O.Ms.No .124 GA (SPL M) Dept', dateci 30 08-2018' i' . G.O.Ms.No.317 GA (Ser.I) Dept , dated 06 1 2'2OZl' : Govt.Memo No.1655/SOL.1 I2OZI-7 of Gene al Administration (SPF-I), Department, dl 23'1 2'2021' .:- Orders daLed 14.72.2022 of the Hon'ble Higlt Court lssued in W.P. No. 4476112O22 fil'zd l)y Smt'M' Sandhya Rani, SGT, erstwhile Mahabub lagzrr District' $$$$ The apr:al filed bY Smt M Sandhya Rani, SGl, erstwhile Mahabubnaqar District has been examined in light of the o ders of the Hon'ble High (.rli,rrt in WP No. 44761/2022, relevant rules' end records furnished bv tl e District Educational officer, erstvrhile Marabubnagar is found not eligible for conside'lng her case in District. T1e l€titioner terms of the orders issued in references 2nd and 3rd read above' Petitioner is ,r. S. No. (3436) in the seniority list' She has given preferences rr the order of Ranga Reddy. Wanapartl-y ard she was allotted to ,r/:naparthy district. The general (:ut off for getting l \ 5 SN, J wP t4t2t 2023 allotment to Ranga Reddy district is at Sl. No. (3303) in the seniority list. Even if the candidates mentioned by the petitioner in her appeal are.re-allotted to another new local cadre, the petitioner would not have got allotted to Ranga Reddy district as there are (27) seniors to the petitioner who have given their preference to Ranga Reddy district out got arrotted to other districts. The appear of the petitioner is hence rejected. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District and District Educationar officer, Mahabubnagar District are directed to take further necessary action in the matter. Sd/- V. KARUNA SECRETARY TO GOVERNM ENT (c) Th rel van of th r 19 .06.2023 Dassed inw. P.N 377 20 ot 2022inoa rticu la r pa ra Nos,8to 11 areextra dhe reun er: "A, 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 3t.03.2022. 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.21SO and B.Vanitha Rani, Seniority No.2148 and Smt. G.Vijaya Lakshmi, Seniority No.5833 originally belongs to OC community but 6 SN. J \,,P l4l2l 2023 she was erroneously considered under SC comm inlt\" and allotted l() lew local cadre of Ranga Reddy Dist rict clearly' sho,rs that the respondent No.1 withoul verifyirg the recorcs p3ssed the present impugned rejection :rders by disposing c f appeal. This Court feels that the rer;pordents entertai,r n,3 the appeals as an empty formality anc rej lcting the sarne 't1e said action is arbitrary and illegal.

9. Tl-rc contention of the respondents is that € ven iF the juniors trr the petitioner were re-allotted to cther District, the cirse cf the petitioner cannot be considered as t'^/enty one (2'! ieniors to the petitioner were allotted to other Districts. fhe so called twenty one (21) senicrs to the petitione,- ltave their first preference to Ranga Reddy t)istrict who qo h'l their claim and no one questioned their allo:ment orders t,: other Districts. Now, the respondents (annot deprive thr: right of the petitioner as she availed her r(imedy of appeal ,rnd questioning the continuation of the jun ors in Ranga qeccly District and rejecting the case of the pet tioner on thr: ;a c around is arbitrary and illegal' -T'lr: above said six (6) iuniors to the pet tion':r are 10. continuirrq in Ranga Reddy District by the respondents as on today whir:h is irregular as per the G.O.Ms.No.317, G:neral Ad mirr i:;tration (SPF-I) Department, dated 06'L2 2O2l' Thererfc,r:, the impugned rejection order is arbitrary, illegal and ther ';arre is liable to be set aside.

11. l n /iew of the above findings, this rvrit peti .ion is disposec of setting aside the impugned rejectiorl orCer in lYemo No Spl/Secretary Peshi/2021-198 dated 31.O-' .2022 passed ':1, the respondent No.1 and the resporldents are 7 SN, J wP t4t2t 2023 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 Districr within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order" However, there shall be no order as to costs,,. DISCU ssrONA ND coN ct-u o rTl

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalF of the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the allotment order dated 27.12.202t issued by the District Educationar officer, Mahabubnagar alotting wanaparthy as the rocar cadre and directing the petitioner to report to the new local cadre Wanaparthy within three days from the date of issuance of proceedings dated 21.12.2021, the petitioner filed W.p. No.44761 of 2022 on an earlier occasion and the said writ petition was disposed of vide its order dated 14.12.2022 directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 24.Lt.2022 strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible prefera bly within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. However, in pursuance to the orders of this Court, the impugned proceedings dated 28.02 .2023 had been mechanically issued rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that there are 27 seniors to the petitioner who had given 8 SN.,I UP I ,1 lz l 2021 preferenc€r ''o :he Ranga Reddy District and further e''ren if the candidates; rr',r:rrtioned by the petitioner in the appe;:l are allotted toanothe-!or:llcadre,thepetitionerwouldrrotle''llottedto Ranga Redcil' )istrict as there are 27 seniors to the petitioner who had giv,3" the r preference to Ranga Reddv D strict but allotted to other Districts and therefore, the appeal of the petitioner hac been rejected.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends thrat the petitioner is not pressing any relief against the unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 9 in the present writ petitiorr and the grievance of the petationer could be considered in accordance to law by the' c'ompetent Authority.

7. The ler;trned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prlaces on record the order dated 19'O6'2O23 passed in \ /.P. No. 37720 ol 2022 whereunder in identical circumstancr:s in a writ petition filed by one K' Krishnaveni pertaining to the same subject is;sue, this Court had allowed the said writ petition setting aside the impugned rejection order therein, direcl:ing the \ /' I wp r+rzr respondents thereunder to reconsider the case of the petitioner for altotting her in the existing vacancy of Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu)(LB) in Ranga Reddy District and therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is atso entitled to the same relief.

8. The learned Assistant Government pleader for School Education appearing on behatf of respondents does not dispute the passing of orders in respect of other employees dated 19.06.2023 passed in W.p. No.37720 of 2()22 and submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the 1't respondent to reconsider the proceedings dated 21.12.2O2L of the 3.d respondent, the Memo, dated 29.O2.2023 of the 1"t respondent and also to reconsider the petitioner,s representation dated 24.Lt,2OZZ in accordance to law by providing an opportunity of personat hearing to the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, l0 SN, J \\, l4 t2l 2023 It is; thr: specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner 10. was placecl at il.Nos.34 and 36 in the seniority list illr:gally by placing se\/eral luniors above the petitioner in the seniority list and on thr: abrlve said ground petitioner preferrec arr appeal/ representati(ln clated 24.LL.2022, but however' the potitioner's request fo' allctment to Ranga Reddy District had beer rejected unilaterallv vlde the impugned memo of the 1sr rer;pondent' dated28'02.,2C23,Withoutprovidinganopportunityolpersonal hearing to th(r petitioner, without considering the rxistakes that occurred irr preparing the said seniority list, placing the petitioner at Serial l(crs. 34 and 36 and juniors above the petitioner were allotted tc, the said Districts during the pendency c)f tl- e present writ petitio,r. This Court opines that the sr'rbjt:rct issue needs to be reconsidered by the 1't respondent irr view of the orders of this Court, dated 14'12'2O2tZ passed in W.P.No.4476 of 2C22 and the orders, dated 19'O6'2O23 passed in 'W'P.No'3772O ot 2022'

11. Ta kinq tnto nsidera n (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstanct:s of the case, SN, J wP t4tzt 2021 (b) The submissions made by the learned counse! appearing on behatf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for School Education, appearing on behalf of respondents and upon consent without going into the merits of the case. (c) The contents of proceedings vr-de proc.No. E'/E'/MA/WANA/SEGR/65g2, dated 21.12.2O21 of the District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar (referred to and extracted above), (d) The contents of Memo No. Spl.Secretary Peshi/2O2L-947 dated 2a.O2.2O23 of the respondent No.1 (referred to and extracted above), (e) The relevant portion of the order dated 19.06.2023 passed in W.p. No. 37720 ot 2022 in particular para Nos.8 to 11 (referred and extracted above), (f) The representation, dated 24.11.2022 ol the petition er. The Writ petition is allowed. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the proceedings dated 2L.12.2O21 of the 3'd respondent and the impugned Memo, dated 24.02.2023 of the respondent No.1 duly reconsidering the q d , t2 SN, J vP r1t2l 2023 representation dated 24.LL.2022 of the petitioner, seeking alllot'nent of Rangareddy District, in accordance to law by tzrl<ing into consideration the subsequent developments which occurred subsequent to the, filing of the writ petition by providing an opportunity of personal hearing tc, the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and duly communicate the decision on the representation of the petitioner, dated 24.11.2022 to the petitioner. l{owever, there shall be,no order as to costs. The nriscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY STA.NT REGISTRAR ASfl To, ,TRUE COPY// SECTI0N OFFICER \\'I' 2 1 The Principal Se c;retary to Government' School Educal:ion +;ir";;;;'iii,rtii sLcrdtaiiat,-eRrs Bhavan' Lower rernk ttyOeribad. llt;rter :f Telangana' The Director of School Education, Telangana State' Hyderabad' The District [-ducrational Officer, Mahabubnagar' Mahabubnzrgar fistrict' One CC to SRI -citl NIVASA RAO MADIRAJU' Advocate IOF UC] TwoCCstoGFfoRSCHooLEDUCATION,HighCourtfortheStateof TJIangana at tlvJ:rabad [OUT] Department, Bund Road, 4 3

6. Two CD CoPies BSR BS g;c TODAY ..,= t itt SIA gY (|. C I i.) ? uN ?$25 j:) -r.{ HIGH COURT DATED:2310412Ct25 ORDER WP.No.14121 o12023 ALLOWING T'HE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS .\._ %