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.
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.
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.
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.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & 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.