The High Court · 2025

Petitiol under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file(l in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondenls to forthwith reinstate the Pelitioner into service by suspending order datd 26.12.2022, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt M.SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent No.I: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA Counsel for. the Respondent No.2: AGP FOR EDUCATION Counsel forr the Respondent No.3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRt G.SREE CHANDRA, SC FOR RMSA The Court made the folloving: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO.2O314 OF 2O23 ORDER: Heard sri K. srikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri G. Sree Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for RMSA, appearing on behalf of respondent No'5'

2. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking the following relief: .....to issue a writ, order or Direction, more particularly . one in the nature of wRIT OF MANDAMUS by declaring the action of the 5th Respondent in terminating the Petitioner from the services from the post of special officer, Kasturba Gandhi Balika vidyalaya, Neradigunda byorderdated26.|2.2022andtheactionofthe Respondent No.3 in not considering the representation of the Petitioner against the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including back wages from the date of her illegal termination and pass""'' 2 SN, J wP_203 t4_2023

3. Th,= case of the petitioner in brief, is that the petitioner has been working as special officer, KGBV, Neradigondla since 2013. The respondent No.5 passed impugned order on 26.L2.2022 terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that out of 258 students, 32 students of KGBV, Neradigonda have undergone starvation and illness due to lack of supervision and negligence when complaints were made by the students and parents on 26.12.2022. The Girl child coordinator, Adilabad submitte:d a report against the petitioner. The petitioner also submitte:d representations dated 11.01 .2023 to the respondent No.4 and dated 16.06.2023 to the respondent No.5 but the same have not been considered. Aggrieved by the action of the 5th respondr:nt dated 26.Lz.zo2z, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the present writ petition. (A,) The impuq BVI EPl2o22. dated 26.12.2o22 issued bv the resoondent No.S is extracted hereunder: Rc.N A4t PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (FAC) & lt 3"l?: i.l Ji*.1 D r LA B A D ,.",. ".=,l.oIl"t Rc.No.A4lKGBV/Fpl2O22, Dated 26.1-2.2(122 ,t r J SN, J wP_203r4_2023 Sub: Contractual Services Smt. P. Jayasree Special Officer, KGBV, Neradigonda - Termination from Contractual Service Orders - Issued - Reg . Ref: 1. Representation of the students and parents of KGBV Neradigonda on causing starvation and illness of students on 25.L2.2022.

2. Observation submitted by the GECO, Adilabad **** It has been noticed by the District Educational Officer & Ex- Officio TS SS, Adilabad that out of 258 students 32 students of KGBV Neradigonda have underwent starvation and illness due to lack of supervision and negligence even after the complaint of the students from the previous 3 days, and considering the report submitted by the GECO, Adilabad, the undersigned opines, it is necessary to terminate Smt. P. Jayasree, Special Officer, KGBV Neradigonda, Adilabad District from the contractual services with immediate effect. Therefore, she is directed to hand over the charge of Special Officer KGBV Neradigonda immediately to Smt. Mamatha PGCRT (Maths) for academics, Smt. Shaheen CRT (Hindi) for all the other activities. Smt. Mamatha PGCRT (Maths) & Smt. Shaheen CRT (Hindi) KGBV Neradigonda re instructed to take over the complete charge of Special Officer KGBV Neradigonda from Smt. P. Jayasree Special Officer KGBV Neradigonda Adilabad District immediately. Receipt of this proceedings should be acknowledged by return of post. Sd/-x x x District Educational Officer & Ex-Officio, PO, TS SS Adilabad. To Smt. P. Jayasree Special Officer KGBV, Neradigonda, Adilabad District. 4 SN. J wP_203 l4 2021 5. The learned counsel aopearinq on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the followinq submissions:- :i l.- (a) In pursuance of a paper publication in Eenadu and The Hindu dated 11.09.2013 calling for applications from eligible candidates possessing the required qualifications for appointment as Special Officer, the petitioner had been appointed on 09.12.2013 vide Rc.No.545/KGBV/RVM/SSA/SO/2013, dated

09.12.2013 and since the year 2013 the petitioner had been discharr;ing the petitioner's duties sincerely. (b) Basing on frivolous allegations that out of 258 students, 32 students of KGBV, Neradigonda had undergone starvation and illness due to negligence on the part of the petitiorrer herein on the basis of alleged complaint from the students, an impugned order dated 26.L2.2O22 had been issued by the 3'd respondent herein terminating the services of the petitiorer with immediate effect. r.c) The termination orders being stigmatic in nature relating to termination of duties of the petitioner with clear stipul;rtion in the impugned order vide Rc.No.A4/KGBV/FP12022 5 SN. J wP_203 r1_2023 dated 26.t2.2O22 issued by the 5th respondent that there had been lack of supervision and negligence by the petitioner herein. (d) The said impugned order could not have been passed terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect without holding regular enquirY. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counset aopearino on behalf of of the oetitioner contends that the oetitioner is entitled for the relief as pravecl for in the oresent writ oetition.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 does not dispute the said fact as borne on record that no regular enquiry had been conducted and the fact that the said impugned order dated 26.t2.2022 issued by the 5th respondent is stigmatic in nature. But, however to justify the action of the 5th respondent it is contended that the said order was passed in the interest of children, and that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are ready and willing to allocate the petitioner to another residential institution. i i $ t I I I I i i I I I 6 SN, J wP 20314 2023

7. The Apex court in the Judoment dated 22.08.2024 in Civil Aooeal No.9758 of 2024 in Swati Privadarshini Vs. The State of Madhva Pradesh & Others observed as under: "12. Aggrieved, the appellant/original writ-petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter reft:rred to as the "constitution") to file writ Petition No. 84O4/2OL3 before the High court against the order dated 30.03.2013 supra refusing to renew/extend her services. A learned Single Judge allowed this writ petition on 20.06.2017 and quashed the order dated 30.03'2013, holdinq that the terminataon otders beino stigmatic in nature, relating to alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude the same could not have been passed without holding a reqular enquiry". 3Gi. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the Inrpugned Judgment is quashed and set aside. The judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.06.2oL7 stands revived, however with a modification to the extent that the aprpetlant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including notional continuation in service at par with other similarly-situated employees, but with the back wages rerstricted to 50o/o. Further, in view of the long passage of Jrrdge. However, this will not preclude the respondents from tilking action against the appellant in accordance with law rn futuro apropos her official duties on the post in question, if ,t 7 r L,-s ( the situation so arises. The exercise be compreted within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment,,. SN, J wP_201l4_2023 \ \\

8. (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counset of the petitioner, the learned RMSA, appearing on behalf of appearing on behalf Standing Counset for respondent No.S t (c) The taw raid down in the Judgment by the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above), The writ petition is artowed as prayed for. The order impugned vide Rc.No. A4/KGBV lFp / 2O2Z dated 26'12'2o.22 passed by the 5th respondent in terminating the petitioner from the post of the speciar officer, ,(GBV, Neradigonda is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect, with all consequentiar benefits incruding petitioner notionat continuation in service on par with simitarly situated employees with back wages restricted to 50o/o. However, there shalt be no order as to costs. 8 The misce'aneous apprications, pending if dtry, sha, stand wp_zo: r+_i'o\zi closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.A.H.S. GOWRT SHANKAR ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER To, of lndia. 1' The :Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi, Union 2. The Principar secretary, schoor Education Department, secretariat, 3' The Ex-officio State Project Director/ commissioner and Director of school Education, samagra siriha Abhiyan, Beside rercpnone Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad Hyde,rabad, State of Telangana. Siksl'ra Abhiyan, Adilabad

4. The t)istrict Collector, Adilabad District Adilabad 5' The District Educational officer and Ex-officio project Officer, Samagra 6. One rlC to SRt M.SRIKANTH, Advocate [OpUCt. 7 ' one rlc to sRr G.SREE .HANDRA, sc FoR RMSA topucl 8. one cc to sRr N.BHUJANGA RAo, DEpury solrcrroR GENERTAL oF 9. Two rlcs to Gp FoR EDUCATTON, High court for the state of retangana at - Hyde.abad [OUT] 10.Two'3cs to Gp__FoR REVENUE, High court for the state of rerangana at lNDllr, High court for the state of reranganaat Hyol-rabad [opUCJ Hydeabad [OUT] 1 1. Two OD Copieso BSR/PMK t I CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED i 1711012025 t o() *iH slh 1 5 [Pt', 2[2[ .c': * i t'\.._ -fr .".() ORDER WP.No.20314 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS -\ (.ewr h rsl L0r;