Telangana High Court
Banoth Ravi Kumar And 80 Others vs The District Collector And 5 ... on 31 January, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
Writ Appeal No.16 of 2022
JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the
appellants and the learned Additional Advocate-General
for the State of Telangana, for the respondents.
2. Appellants, as petitioners, had approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No.36409 of 2021 seeking
the following reliefs, viz.,
"..... to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of a Writ of
Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the
action of the respondents more particularly respondent nos.1 and 2 in
not allotting the petitioners in terms of the Guideline No.21 annexed
to the G.O.Ms.No.317 GAD dated 06.12.2021 issued by the 6th
respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, mala fide,
insubordination and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21
of the Constitution of lndia against the principles of natural justice;
and to issue consequential direction to the respondents, more
particularly, 1st and 2nd respondents to forthwith allot the petitioners to
the newly formed districts i.e., four districts i.e., Khammam, Badradri
Kothagudem, Mahabubabad and Mulugu which was bifurcated from
the erstwhile Khammam District strictly as per the Guideline No.21
annexed to G.O.Ms.No.317 GAD dated 06.12.2021 issued by the 6th
Respondent, and if necessary, to review the allocations made contrary
to G.0.Ms.No.317, GAD dated 06.12.2021..."
3. According to the appellants, they are all teachers
working in Bhadradri Kothagudem District (erstwhile
UB,J & PSS,J
::2:: wa_16_2022
Khammam District) belonging to the Schedule Tribes of
Agency Area.
4. Government of Telangana had issued
G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021 (briefly, 'the G.O.'
hereinafter) for organisation of local cadres in respect of
posts under the State Government and for allotment of
persons holding such posts to the local cadres to be so
organised.
5. As per guideline No.21 of the said G.O., as far as
practicable, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
employees will be allotted to District / Zonal / Multi-
Zonal cadres in the same proportion as allocable working
strength that has been distributed among the new
District / Zonal / Multi-Zonal cadres.
6. Guideline No.27 says that any employee aggrieved
by an allotment to a local cadre may submit a report to
the Secretary of the concerned Government Department,
and on receipt of such representation, Government shall
consider and dispose of the same as may be deemed fit.
7. Thus, the writ petition sought for enforcement of the
said G.O., more particularly, Guideline No.21, as referred
to above.
UB,J & PSS,J
::3:: wa_16_2022
8. However, at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition,
learned State Counsel informed the Court that no
allotment had taken place, and therefore, writ petition
was premature. Grievance expressed by the petitioners
that Guideline No.21 would not be followed by the State
was a mere apprehension.
9. By the order dated 29.12.2021, learned Single
Judge agreed with the contention advanced by the
learned State Counsel that since no allotment had taken
place the writ petition was premature and in the event
Guideline No.21 was not followed, petitioners would have
their remedy in terms of Guideline No.27. Therefore, the
writ petition was dismissed.
10. Aggrieved, present writ appeal has been filed.
11. In the hearing to-day, learned Additional Advocate-
General submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.1566 of 2022 had noted that all
allotments have been made in terms of the G.O. and that
the employees had already joined in their respective
places of allotment. Therefore, declining to interfere with
such allotment, coordinate Bench of this Court by order
dated 07.01.2022 had dismissed the interlocutory
application seeking stay by granting liberty to the
UB,J & PSS,J
::4:: wa_16_2022
petitioners therein to submit appeal / representation in
terms of Guideline No.27.
12. On a query by the Court as to whether the State
had followed Guideline No.21, as alluded to hereinabove,
learned Additional Advocate-General submits that there
may be complaints in certain allotments regarding non-
adherence to the requirements of Guideline No.21, but
those would have to be verified. But, he submits that it
is a matter of an individual case and the aggrieved
person can certainly ventilate his grievance under
Guideline No.27.
13. When the related writ petition was filed, no
allotments were made in terms of the G.O. and that was
the reason why the view was taken by the learned Single
Judge that the Writ Petition was premature, as no
presumption could have been drawn that the State
Government would not act in consonance with its own
guidelines. However, on going through the order dated
07.01.2022 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1 of
2021 in Writ Petition No.1566 of 2022, we find that the
entire allotment exercise in terms of the G.O. is over and
that the employees have already joined their respective
places of allotment.
UB,J & PSS,J
::5:: wa_16_2022
14. Having regard to the above and on due
consideration, we are of the view that the persons
aggrieved may file representation(s) before the Secretary
of the concerned Government Department within a period
of four (04) weeks from to-day. On such representation(s)
being filed, the Secretary of the concerned Department
shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in
accordance with law within a period of one (01) month
from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation, if
necessary by giving opportunity of hearing to the
representationist.
15. With the above direction, Writ Appeal is disposed of.
No costs.
16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if
any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
______________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, J
______________________
P. SREE SUDHA, J
Date : 31.01.2022
Ndr
