Telangana High Court
Smt. Ramkali Mishra Alias Ramkali vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 31 January, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
W.A.No.297 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.2043 of 2023 by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed.
2. Heard learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. It is the case of the appellants that the 1st respondent is working as Secondary Grade Teacher and she was allotted to Suryapet from Nalgonda in terms of G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021. Aggrieved by the allotment to Suryapet District, the respondent has submitted a representation to the appellants on 28.12.2021 and the said representation is under 2 consideration with the appellants. Even before the said representation could be considered, the respondent has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2043 of 2023 and the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition at the admission stage and directed the appellants to post the respondent in a nearby school of equivalent status to Government High School (Girls) in Nalgonda District. Hence, the writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that elaborate guidelines were framed vide G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021, wherein widows appointed under compassionate appointment scheme, and the teachers, who were having mentally retarded children and the teachers, who were suffering from 3 disabilities, would be considered under preferential guidelines. Learned counsel had further contended that the respondent is not a widow, she is a spinster and not a married women and she has submitted a representation to the appellants on 28.12.2021 requesting to retain her in Nalgonda District instead of allotting her to a nearby school at Suryapet. Learned counsel had further contended that the case of the respondent does not fall under the preferential categories and hence the question of considering her case for retention and allotment to Nalgonda at this point of time would not be possible and the respondent has to report to Suryapet District in pursuance of her allotment thereto. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had contended that the respondent is having an aged mother, who is residing at Nalgonda and she has to take care of her aged mother. Learned counsel had further contended that the respondent has submitted a representation to the appellants on 28.12.2021 requesting them to allot her to Nalgonda District instead of Suryapet District. But, so far, no orders have been passed thereon. Therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in directing the appellants to continue the 1st respondent in Nalgonda District only. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that a perusal of G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021 and Clause 27 of the appendix to the said G.O deals with 5 the representations on allotment orders. Admittedly, the respondent was allotted to Suryapet District and the respondent has submitted a representation dated 28.12.2021 to the appellants in terms of Clause 27 of appendix to G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021 to allot her to Nalgonda District. But, so far, the appellants have not passed any orders thereon. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent in terms of Clause 27 of appendix to G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021 and pass appropriate orders by re-examining the case of the respondent.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of and the respondent is permitted to submit a representation afresh to the appellants for her retention in Nalgonda District within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of 6 a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the appellants shall consider the case of the respondent in terms of Clause 27 of appendix to G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021 and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ______________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 23.03.2023 rkk 7