The State Of Telangana And 4 Others vs T.Vijay Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3043 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3043 Tel
Judgement Date : 27 October, 2021

Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana And 4 Others vs T.Vijay Kumar on 27 October, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                      AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY


                   WRIT APPEAL No.592 of 2020

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

18.11.2020 in W.P.No.3447 of 2020 by which the learned

Single Judge has directed the State Government to consider

the case of the petitioner for giving him posting to a nearby

place to Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by extending

the benefit of Rule 6 (II) (c) of the Recruitment Rules issued

vide G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 06.06.2018.

     The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent/writ petitioner, who was working as a School

Assistant (English) in Zilla Parishad High School, Andugula,

Madugul Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, has completed

eight years of service and he came under the category of

compulsory transfer. Rule 6 of the Telangana Teachers

Transfer (Regulation of Transfers) Rules, 2016 entitles a

Teacher for certain additional special points and also entitles

a Teacher to be posted where his or her spouse is working in

the State Government or Central Government or Public Sector

Undertaking or Local Body or Aided Institution in the same

district. In those circumstances, as the petitioner's case was

not being considered, he came up before this Court and the

learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition.

Paragraphs 5 to 9 of the order of the learned Single Judge

reads as under:

"5. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.06.2020, granted interim order as prayed for, passing a detailed speaking order. But the respondents have not complied the said interim order and the respondents have filed vacate stay application in I.A.No.2 of 2020. The petitioner has contended that the respondents have deliberately not implemented the orders passed by this Court on the ground that the respondents have filed vacate stay application. Therefore, the petitioner contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by allowing the writ petition and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by giving posting orders to any nearby place to Amangal Mandal, where the petitioner's wife is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner's wife has availed the spouse points during the year 2013. As per Rule 6 (II)

(c) of the Recruitment Rules, only one of the spouses is entitled for special points under spouse category and since the petitioner's wife has already availed spouse points way back in 2013, the petitioner is not entitled for spouse points again. He further contended that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for giving posting orders at Amangal Mandal as there is a ban on giving spouse points, therefore, the spouse points cannot be extended to the petitioner and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that the Statutory Rules for effecting transfer issued vide G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 06.06.2018 are prospective in nature. Rule 6 (II) (c) of the Recruitment Rules, never says that it has got retrospective effect. Even if the petitioner's wife has availed the spouse points during the year 2013, that would not prevent the petitioner in claiming the spouse points, in accordance with Rule 6 (II) (c) of the Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the contention of the Government Pleader that the petitioner's wife has already availed the spouse points way back in the year 2013 cannot prevent the petitioner in availing the benefit under Rule 6 (II) (c) of the Recruitment Rules. Therefore, Rule 6 (II) (c) of the Recruitment Rules should be understood that it will have the effect of prospective in nature i.e., from the date of issuance of Statutory Rules i.e., on 06.06.2018. It should be understood in prospective way and the respondents cannot give effect of Rule 6 (II) (c) of Recruitment Rules with retrospective effect. Therefore, the impugned rejection order, dated 25.10.2019, passed by the respondents is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly, set aside.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for giving posting orders to the petitioner to any nearby place to Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by duly extending the benefit of Rule 6 (II)

(c) of the Recruitment Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 06.06.2018. The contention of learned Government Pleader that there is a ban in extending spouse weightage marks as on today has no relevancy, at all, as the case of the petitioner has to be considered by giving spouse weightage marks as on the date of effecting the transfer i.e., during July, 2018. Therefore, the said contention of the learned Government Pleader that there is a ban has no relevancy and the same is totally misconceived.