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
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
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.
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
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
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
