Rejecting the Transfer Plea of a Widow Who Avails Transfer Under Preferential Category Is Invalid: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Must Read

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Follow us

A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, in the case of Yettapu Padmavathamma vs state of Andhra Pradesh. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, questioning the actions of the Respondents namely – The Commissioner and Director of School Education Anjaneya Towers (Respondent No. 1), and The District Educational Officer (Respondent No. 2) in rejecting the transfer petition of the Petitioner and not viewing the representations made before them by her. 

Facts of the Case

In this case, the Petitioner was a widow whose husband died on 27.05.2020 following which she had applied for transfer on the grounds of being a widow. The Petitioner made two representations on 5.12.2020 and 13.02.2020 respectively, seeking to avail preferential category as per the guidelines in column No. 10(b) of G.O. Ms. No. 54 dated 12.10.2020. The Respondents rejected the transfer application of the Petitioner & failed to consider the representations made by her on the above-mentioned dates. Therefore, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the Respondents’ actions and directing them to consider the representations made in the transfer application.

Arguments Advanced

Although the Petitioner had made several allegations against the Respondents previously, during the final hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner requested the Court to issue a direction to the Respondents to dispose of the representations submitted by the Petitioner dated 05.12.2020 and 13.12.2020.

The Learned Government Pleader for services-III appearing for the Respondents agreed to dispose of the representations made by the Petitioner which were pending with the Respondent’s authority.

Court’s Analysis 

The Court analyzed that the submission made by the Learned Government Pleader and stated that it did not need to decide the truth in the allegations made by the Petitioner. The court decided not to pass any other order, referring to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in The Government of India v. P. Venkatesh. Since the Learned Counsel of the Petitioner himself requested the Court to dispose of the representations submitted by the Petitioner, no other directions need to be issued other than to dispose of the representations made by the Petitioner.

Court’s Decision

The Court held that the rejection of the transfer petition is illegal and directed the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to avail the preferential category as her husband was working as a lecturer in government junior college, on humanitarian grounds. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the Respondents to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner, under law, within four weeks from the passing of the order. 

Click here to view the judgment 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the “two-finger” virginity test and...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

Uttarakhand High Court Directed State Authorities To Frame SOP Regarding Kumbh Mela 2021

Noticing the commencement date of Kumbh Mela 2021 amid pandemic from 27 February 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday expressed concern with regard to organizing and conducting of the Mela and directed State Authorities to discuss and resolve the logistical problems which can come in organizing the Mela during the pandemic time.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Mahindra Finance, Being a Purely Private Body: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that Writ Petition against the purely private body is not maintainable and dismissed the petition which was filed against Mahindra Finance Bank as Arif Khan v. Branch Manager Mahindra Finance Sultanpur & Another.

Publication of Notices for Inter-Faith Marriages No Longer Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has passed a landmark judgment that likely brings relief to inter-faith marriage. The Court on Wednesday said that the mandatory publication of Notices of Inter-Faith marriages will now be optional to protect the Privacy and Liberty of the Couple. The Court observed that the publication of the notice would “invade the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy”. Therefore, it has made it optional for the couple, they can now request in form of writing to a marriage officer to publish or not to publish a notice regarding the marriage.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -