Mirza Fasahath Ali Baig v. The State Of Ap.
[ 321e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION (TR) NO: 309 OF 2017 Between:
1. Mirza Fasahath Ali Baig, S/o Miza Jawad Ali Baig, Aged 30 years, Working as UDRI, Kagaznagar Municipality Adilabad District.
2. S.Ramakrishha, S/o Srinivasa Chary, aged 33 years, Working as UDRI, Korutla Municipality Karimangar District.
_..A''L'CANTS AND The State of AP., rep.by its Secretary, MA and UD Department, Secretanat Buildings, Hyderabad.
The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, AC Guards, Hyderabad.
The Regional Director-cum -Appellate Commissioner, Municipal Administration, AC Guards, Hyderabad.
The Regional Director-cum -Appellate Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Warangal, Warangal District.
Smt.N.Nirmala Working as UDRI, Vikarabad Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.
Smt.G.Gnaneswari Working as UDRI, Miryalguda Municipality, Nalgonda District.
Smt.Ch.Sravani, Working as UDRI, Nalgonda Municipality, Nalgonda District J ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 226 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to to call for the records relating to seniority list issued vide Proc.Roc.No.9432l2}12lk1 , dt.21.12.2012 by the 2nd respondent in the cadre of UDRIs in Multi Zone - ll and set aside the same by declaring as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules and also without taking into date of appointment of the applicants in the cadre of Junior Assistants and consequently direct the respondents to place the names of the applicants in the final seniority list of UDRIs dt. 20.12.2012 at Sl.No.48 and 49 i.e. above G. Gangadhar by taking into
account of date of appointment in the cadre of Junior Assistant with all attendant benefits Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. RAMA KRISHNA REP SRI P. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. ]USTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI w PETITION (TR) No. O9of2ot7 ORDER:
InthisWritpetition,thepetitionerisseekingtodeclaretheaction of respondent No.2 in issuing seniority list vide Proc'Roc' No.g432l2ot2lkl,dated2O.l2.2Ol2intheCadreofUDRIsinMulti Zone-II as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules and also without taking into account the date of appointment of the applicants in the cadre of lunior Assistants and consequently to direct the respondents to place the names of the applicants in the final seniority list of UDRIs dated 20.12.2012 at sl.No.4B and 49 by taking into account their date ofappointmentinthecadreofJuniorAssistant,withallattendant benefits and to pass such other orders.
2. Heard Sri K. Rama Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy and learned Government Pleader for servicesII, and perused the materials on record ' 3.TheAndhraPradeshAdministrativeTribunal,Hyderabadvide \ interim order dated 12.03.2013 had directed the respondents to dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the appellants on 16'02'2013 as per rules. Thereafter, abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred t to the High Court and renumbered as WP (TR) No'309 of 2Ol7 ' I // t
4.
Learned Government pleader for Services -II filed counter affidavit enclosing the order dated 20.06.2013, rejecting the appeal of the petitioners.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the counter affidavit has been filed in the year 2013, the petitioners were not aware of the said fact and now choose to challenge the rejection of the appeal order and with the said liberty, he seeks disposal of the petition.
6.
Having regard to the fact that the appeal .of the petitioners was rejected in the year 2013 and that the matter was never listed before the Tribunal after passing the interim order after 12.03.2013, and after its transfer to the High Court, the matter was listed in the year 2024, this Court is inclined to accept the request of the petitioner as he was not aware of the said fact.
7.
Accordingly, this writ petition is closed with a liberty to the petitioners to challenge the rejection order dated 20.06.2013. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ petition, shall stand closed.
SD/- A.SRINIVASA REDDY AS GISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,
1. One CC to SRl. P. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY' Advocate IOPUC]
2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]
3. Two CD Copies BM BSR 7r
HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112024 1UE ST4 '/ ct) 0 3 FE8 2025 aI 7_ * * PATCH r-O
ORDER
WP(TR).No.309 ot 2017 cLosrNG THE WRIT PETTTION (TR) WITHOUTCOSTS (n- ;2s 2-t I GI\j>