B.Ravindra Naik v. The District Tribal Development Officer /Nodal Officer
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
HIGH COU-RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special orisinat lurGJictiJn]'''!, v^,r?1 THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEI\i BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTi PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 243800F2020 Between:
P;5l"i|*q Naik, S/o. Mansingh, ag.eQ About 41 years, Hostel Wetfare Officer uraoe-,' Government sr Bovs-Hostdt nreocnir, r,rdic"ir;i-Ni;rk;jg;;6i;inr.i"'"' ...PETITIONER AND The District rribar Deverooment officer /Nodar officer, Rangareddy District at Hyderabad The District Collector (TW), Rangareddy District, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, State of Telangana, Hyderabad :119:l T"lrlgana., rep.resented by its principat Secrerary, Tribat Wetfare uepanment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
K._Narender, Hostel Welfare Officer Gr.ll, C/o. District Tribal Development Officer, Rangareddy District at Hyderabad, V.Sreelatha, Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-ll, C/o. District Tribal Development Officer, Rangareddy District at Hyderabad.
,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned final seniority list of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-ll of erstwhile Rangareddy District vide Memo. Rc.No. A110612020, dated 2111112020 as being illegal, arbitrary, void and abinitio, contrary to rules and violative of Articles '14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia besides being opposed to all principles of natural justice and consequently setaside the same and hold that the placement given to the petitioner at Sl.No. 1 in the tentative seniority list of Hostel Welfare Officers of erstwhile Rangareddy District vide It4emo. Rc.No.
A110612020, dated: 41912020 issued by the '1 st respondent is perfectly legal, valid and in order and consequently the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-l in preference to the unofficial respondents 5 and 6 with all consequential benefits.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer grade-l in the existing or future vacancies in preference to the unofficial respondents 5 and 6 by suspending the operation of the impugned final seniority list of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-ll vide l\rlemo. Rc.No. Al10612O2O, daled. 2111112020 in so far as placements given to the petitioner and the unofficial respondents are concerned.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES'll The Gourt made the following: ORDER
/ HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI \r7.P.No.24380 OF 2020
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue a wtit, order or direction more particularly onc in lhe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impngned final seniority list of Hostel Welfare Officets Grade-II of ersnvhile Rangareddy District I'ide Memo Rc. No.A/106/2020 dated 2l/77/2020 as being illegal, arbitrary, void and abinitio, contrary to tttles and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of thc Constitutiou of India besides bcing opposed to all principlcs of natural justice rnd conscquentlv sct aside the same and hold that the placement given to the petitioner at Sl.No.l in the tentative seniority list of Hostel Welfare Officers of erstrvhilc Rangareddy Disrict wde Memo Rc.No.
respondent is perfectly legal, valid and in order and consequently the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Hostel Welfate Officer Grade-I in pteference to the unofficial respondents 5 and 6 with all consequential benefits and pass such other ordet or orders as this Hon'ble Couft may deem fit and proper.', Heard Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government pleacler for Services-II appearing for the ofhcial respondenrs. It is the case of the petitioner rhat he is rvorking as Hostel Welfare Officer. The respondenrs have prepared LI provisional senioriry list and the name of the petitioner ligured at serial No.l. Since his name lvas figured ar serial No.
seniority list. Thereafter, the respondents have issued the impugned hnal senioriry list dated Zl.ll.202}, wherein the name of the petitioner was figured at serial No.3 on the ground that he has not passed the departmental examinations within the stipulated period.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Public Service Commission has nor conducted departmental examinations. Even otherwise also, the petitioner has passed the departmental examinations .lvithir-r the stipulated pe riod and the respondents ought not to hzrvc altered the position of the petitioner in the final senioriry list, Aggrieved by the impugned seniority list, the pctitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authoriry on 03.t2.2020, but the same is not yet disposed of. On the other hand, the respondents are effecting promotions to the next cadre of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I. Learned counsel further contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a reasonable period. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents conrended that since the appeal is pending before the appellate authoritv, the appellate authoritv would
consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with larv.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Writ petition can be disposed of directing the appellate aurhoriry to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 03.12.2020 and pass appropriate orders thereon, r.vithin a periocl of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that if the appeal preferred by the petitioner is allowed by the appellate authority, then the respondents shall review the promotion in terms of the order passed by the appellate authority.
Accordingly, the $7rit petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
SD/.CH.VENKATESWARULU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,\\,/ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, I?S"'r:tJ::t Tribal Development officer /Nodal officer, Rangareddy District at
2. The District Collector (TW), Rangareddy District, Hyderabad.
3. The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. t l::':[?iJiil;.%T;l:?. rribar werrare Department, State or rerangana,
5. One CC to Sri. D. Bala Kishan Rao, Advocate tOpUCl
6. Two CCs to Gp for Services_ll, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]
7. Two C.D. Copies Prk
HIGH GOURT DATED:31 11212020 T4 14.
s U o il 7 JA t0 t r!tI * t:.q r.
ORDER
WP. No. 24380 of 2020 Disposing of the WP.
without costs.