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 pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in reverting the petitioner from the post of LFL Head master to that of Secondary Grade Teacher vide impugned orders issued in Rc. No. A4lDTDo/ i395/ 2oi6 dated 29-10-2016 as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the provisions of Rules 23,24,25 and 26 of the A P. state and Subordinate service Ruies 1996 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of lndia and set aside the same accordingly and consequen{ly. hold that the petitioner is entifled to be continued as LFL Headmaster in t6rr{rs of the order of promotion issued by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.A4lDD(TWyt395/2016 dated 19-9-2016 with alt benefits, which are ancillary and incidental thereof. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 56930 OF 2Oj6) 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 to suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings issued by the 4th iespondent in Rc.No. A4lDTDo/1395t 2016 dated 29-10-20 16 and further direct the officiat respondents to continue the petitioner as LFL Headmaster. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Gp FOR TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT. Counsel forthe Respondent No.S: None appeared. The Court made the following: ORDER -7-.Y ")!-. I t I i l: :l 1, w9 46229,2016 NBK, J HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.46229 of 2016 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) vide Proceedings dated 09.09.1991 issued by the District Educational Officer (Agency), Paloncha, and shejoined the post on 11.09.1991. Her services were regularized with effect from 1l .09.1991 vide Proceedings dated 29.08.1998. The petitioner was promoted as LF'L Headmaster vide Proceedings dated 19.9.2016 issued by the 3'd respondent-Depury Director (Tribat Welfare), ITDA, Bhadrachalarn, and she joined the post on 22.09.2016. lt is her case that a Tentative Seniority List dated 30.06.2016 of SGT (Female) was prepared by the respondent authorities wherein the petitioner-S.Seetharnma u'as shown at Serial No.3 with the date of regularization as 11.09.1991, and the name of 5th respondent- S.Kanthamma was shown at Serial No.l0 with the date of regularization as28.01 .1993. Final Seniority List was communicated on 15.09.2016 and she was promoted as LFL Headmaster basing on her placement in the Seniority List. However, subsequently the 5th respondent gave a representation dated 2l .09.2016 to the authorities, basing on which the 3'd respondent has called for objections vide Merno dated 29 .09.2016; and the petitioner replied to the objections by way ofa detailed representation dated 04.10.2016. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 4th respondent-District Tribal Welfare Officer, without considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.10.2016, passed the impugned order dated 29.10.2016 reverting the petitioner to the previous post i.e., Secondary Grade Teacher. The petitioner therefore assails the order dated \ 2 wp_46229 2016 N8K,I I

29.10.2016 passed by the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Rules 23,24 and 25 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Services Rules, I996.

2. Heard Mr. V Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner; and the leamed Government Pleader for Services. Perused the record. Leanred counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was

3. reverted to her previous post of SGT solely based on tl.rc representation dated 2l .09.2016 given by the 5th respondent, and on a purported verification of records; whereas the representation dated 04.10.2016 submitted by the petitioner in support of her case has not lreen considered by the respondent authorities. Leamed counsel subrnits that respective seniority position of the SGT candidates has been notified many times earlier and, in this instance, a temporary seniority tist has been notified in June 2016 and objections were called for and thereafter a final seniority list was published in September 2016. Lcarned counsel submits that no objections were received previously, and raising objcctions now after effecting promotions based on the final seniority list cannot be acccptable. Leamed counsel would further submit that this Court granted interim suspension on the ground of non-consideration of petitioner's representation before passing the impugned order dated 29. 10.2016, and the petitioner has continued in the post of LF-L Headmaster and now she has attained the age ofsuperannuation and therefore no lirrther orders may be required in the writ petition.

4. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the leamed Govemment Pleader, basing on the counter affidavit fited by the 3'd respondent-Deputy Director (Tribal Welfare), is that possessing of :*':::fry 3 wp 46229 2016 NB(, .' I i I i I I I Teacher Training Certificate (TTC) qualification is mandatory lbr reckoning the date of seniority, and the petitioner has passed the test in the year 1999, and therefore her date ofregularization has been rectified from 1991 to 1999 in the records, and after due verification of records, she was reverted to the post of SGT by the impugned order.

5. At the outset, it may be noted that this Court, while admitting the writ petition on29.12.2016' passed the following interim order in WPMP t No.56930 of 2016: \ "Since the impugned order has been passed without considering the petitioner's representation dt.04'10'2016 to the application made by the Sth respondent there shall be interim suspension as prayed for."

6. Having considered the respective subm issions and perused the record, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has been reverted from LFL Headmaster post to the post of SGT, based on an alteration to her date ofregularization from l99l to 1999 on the ground that she did not qualify in the TTC exam at the relevant time in l99l and that she obtained the qualification only in the year 1999. It is settled law that no action can be taken affecting the rights ofan 7 . individual without considering his/her case and affording an opportunity ofhearing. Except the counter affidavit stating that the records have been verified and rectifications were cartied out, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent authorities have considered the petitioner's representation dated 04. I 0.20 1 6. In view of the interim suspension dated 29'12'2016' and 8. considering the submission of the [eamed counsel for the petitioner that --\-'-'gr* \\ .aF,'* 4 wp 46229-2016 NBK, J the petitioner has continued in the post of LFI- Headmaster and has attained the age of superannuation, this Coutt deems that no flrrther orders are required in the writ petition.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/.V.KAVITHA DEPUW REGISTRAR r1-\t'-' SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRl. V RAVICHANDRAN' Advocate' IOPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (TG)' High Court for the State of 1 \ Telangana. [OUT] Two CD CoPies One SPare CoPY. I \ To, 2 J 4 SJR \ HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 ORDER WP.No.46229 of 2016 ( i. ,:)c L-, t\ ' -- --:::> ii"- I iAl.c e,. 05 ru$ ?$[ ) . ," '.1 ., 1, ,. ._.:- ^,,.(t' CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 3o 6 la{ I I I i I I I i I i } i I I t i i i i I I ! I