C. Leela v. The State Of Telangana, Rep By Its Principal Secretary
* I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V.RAMASUBRAMANI AN * HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO + WRI T PETI TI ON NO.33891 of 2017 % Date: 15-11-2017 # Betw een:
C. Leela W/o. Mula Someswara Sharma Field Assitant in Additional Rent Control Court, Secunderabad, on Deputation, R/o. H.No.1-10-223, R-10, Brahmawadi, Begumpet, Hyderabad-69.
..... Petitioner And
1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration (Judicial Department), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.
2. The Law Secretary, for the State of Telangana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.
3. The High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar Adminsitration.
4. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
5. Smt. S. Maheswari, presently working as Typist, O/o. City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
.... Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. K. Satyanarayana Murthy ^ Counsel for Respondent 2 to 4 : Ms. V. Uma Devi ^ Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Mr. G.V.L. Murthy.
< GI ST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.33891 of 2017 ORDER: (Per VRS,J) The petitioner, who is working as Field Assistant, has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order of reversion to the post of Attender.
2. Heard Mr. K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Registry and Mr. G.V.L. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, viz., 5th respondent.
3. The impugned order of reversion was passed, pursuant to a decision taken by the Registry of this Court, on an appeal filed by the 5th respondent. But the decision taken by the Registry is to take appropriate action, after following due procedure by issuing notices to the affected parties.
4. However, without following the said procedure, the Chief Judge of the City Small Causes Court has passed the impugned order dated 03.10.2017, ordering the reversion of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is not in accordance with the resolution passed and the decision taken, as no opportunity was given to the affected party.
5. Hence the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. It is open to the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, to issue notice to both the parties, namely, the petitioner and the 5th respondent, give an opportunity of hearing to both of them and thereafter take a decision.
6. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN, J.
_______________ M. GANGA RAO, J.
15th November, 2017 Js.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.33891 of 2017 15th November, 2017 Js.