The High Court · 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 to suspend the operation of the orders passed by His Lordship Justice Sri Pulla Karthik in l.A.No. 1/2025 in W.P No. 36889 / 2O25 daled 09-12.2025 and also the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.938/SER.lll-1/2025, daled'.24.11 .2025 issued by the 2d respondent and proceedings Rc.No. 26/EsIUTSCERT|2O24' datedi

29.11.2025 issued by the 3'd respondent and continued the petitioner in the 3d respondent's office, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANTHI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. POODATTU AMARENDER Counset for the Respondents: SRI SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO, GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEIANGANA AT I{YDERABAD The Hon'ble The ChiefJustice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh The Hon'ble Sri lustice G.M.Mohiuddin Wtit Appeal No.1450 of 2025 Datedz 12.72.2025 Between: A.Uma Rani The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Pdncipal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. Iudgment: Appellant Respondents Heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learncd Scnior - Counsel appearing for Mr. Amarender Pooclatru, learned counsel for the appellant and IW. Santhapur Satyanarey^na Rao, learned Government Pleader for Sen,ices-l appearing / flor the respondents.

2. Appellant 1S aggrieved bv intcrim order dated 09.12.2025, passed by the learned \\rrit (-ourt in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.36889 of 2025, refusing to stay the proceedings dated 24.71.2025, whereby the appellant has been repatriated to the Education Department from State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT).

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits rhat the case of the present appellant stands on equal footing r,vith that of one Ponnam Madhavi, both of rvhom werc rcvcrted b.v the same impugned proceedings dated 24.11.2025, and in whose case, the learned \X/rit Court has, bv arr interim order of the same date passed in \Y/.P.No.36885 of 2025, granted suspension of the impugned procecdings of her repatriation from SCERT to \ the llducation Dcpartmcnr as well as her relieving order in procecdings datcd 29.1 1 .2025. ..?..

4. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to the proceedings dated 23.04.2008, 20.05.2008 08.07.2008 and 02.06.2074, which are also correspondences berween the Education Department and the SCERT in order to submit that the appellant was promoted as School Assistant initially. Thereafter, she was sent on deputation to SCERT whereafter she was appointed on transfer to the vacant post existing in the SCERT. After sev€nteen years of such appointment on transfer, the impugncd proccedings dated 24.1,1.2025 have been issurcd, purportedly on a representation of the Employees' Union, for repatriation of the appellant as well as Ponnam Mladhavi. 'llhe learned $7rit Court has granted intcrim suspension in case of Ponnam Madhavi, but has reflused thc same relief to the appellant on erroneous grounds. -l'herefore, the appellant has preferred this Writ ,'\ppeal. zi42z

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that the State is in the process of fiIing a stay .vac te petition before the learned Writ Court so that coffect facts are brought to the notice oF the learned Writ Court in respect of other similar Writ Petitions where interim suspension has been granted. He also submits that senrices of both the appellant as well as Ponnam Madhavi were never rransferred on appointment to SCERT from the Directorate o[ Education. He has also referred to a Division Bench -f udgrncnt o[ the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M.Kesavulu and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and orhersl ro submit that G.O.Ms.No.538 Educarion (Ser.II) Department dated 20.1.1998, as relicd upon by the petitioner, u/as aLreadv s truck dor.vrr. t zoo:(o) ALD s22 (DB) ..(..

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

7. The matters are pending before the learned Writ Court. Apparendy, both the appellant and Ponnam Madhavi were repatriated by the impugned proceedings dated 24.11.2025 from SCERT to the Directorate of Education and the leamed '$7rit Court has taken ^ different view in case of the appellant for the reasons recorded in the impugned interim order dated 09.12.2025 Therefore, at this stage, we do not wish to make anl, comments on the rival case of the parties. Lest it mav prejudice thc case o[ the appellant before the learned Writ Court. Horvever, since the State is in the process of trling stay vacate petition in W.P.No.36885 of 2025, we deem it proper to post the instant \)7rit Petition 2.e., W.P.No.36889 ::6:: of 2025, along with the said Writ Petition before the learned Writ Court.

8. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that the st^y v^cate petition would be flrled by 18.72.2025 with a request to hear the same on ^fl urgent basis. Therefore, we request the learned Writ Court to take up the stay v^cate petition at the earliest, preferably in the week commencing 22.1,2.2025. 'I'he present appellant would also be ^t libcrn' to make submission on the correctness and legaliq, o[ thc irnpugned proceedings dated 24.11.2025. -['hcrea[ter, ir rvould be open for the learned Writ C<lurt to takc ^ r,icrv on the question of interim suspension of thc impugned proceedings dated 24.11,.2025 in casc of thc appellant also.

9. Till then, if the appcllant's scn'ices have not been relieved from thc SCIrKl, status rluobc maintained. ..n..

10. The instant Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending rf any, stand closed. SD/.N. SRIHARI /ffRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

2. The Di'iector of School Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad a. The Director of State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT),

4. The District Educational Officer, Adilabad District 5. One CC to SRt. POODATTU AMARENDER, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Courtforthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies BM BS Vv t? HIGH COURT ATEDi12l12l2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1450 of 2025 {Hi I (- i!, ,a 1 g JAr{ z[tt z. ( ISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL \C ."'{ftL Yl 566a',