Vaila Deepak v. The Presiding Officer

\ 13447 |

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3365 OF 2026 Between Vaila Deepak, (Employee Code: 2163799), S/o. Vaila Koteshwar Rao, Aged 30 years, Occ: Office Subordinate, R/o. H.No.13-132, Raghavendra Nagar Colony, Behind SBl, fi/edchal, t\Iedchal-tVlalkajgiri District, Telangana State. ...PETITIONER AND

1. The Presiding Officer, Principal District and Session Court, Malkajgiri at Kushaig uda, [\4ed cha l-Ma I kajg iri District, Tela ngana State. The Registrar (Recruitment), Telangana High Court, High Court Buildings Telangana. Telangana State

3. The Presiding Officer, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Vlll Addl. [Vletropolitan 'Magistrate Court lVledchal, IMedchal-t\Ialkajgiri District, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the 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 a direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1't Respondent to consider the representations dated 05- 07-2024 and 30-12-2024 on humanitarian grounds and permit the petitioner to withdraw his resignation letter dated 01-04-2024 which was submitted in a confused mind seeing the deteriorating condition of the petitioner's mother's health as both duty towards the Court as well as duty towards the mother's health are important equally and permit the petitioner to work as Office Subordinate in the 3'd

Respondent Court which is still vacant on humanitarian grounds and consequently set aside the Proceedings dated 23-04-2024 issued by the 1"t Respondent and also declaring the action of the 1't Respondent in not considering the petitioner's representatiorrs mentioned above as violative of Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution ollndia IA NO: 10F 2026 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 1't Respondent to consider the representations dated 05-07-2024 and 30-12ZAZ4 on hunanitarian grounds and permit the petitioner to withdraw his resignation letter dated 01-04-2024 which was submitted in a confused mind seeing the deteriorating condition of the petitioner's mother's health as both duty towards the ,lourt as well as duty towards the mother's health are important equally and permit the petitioner to work as Office Subordinate in the 3rd Respondent Oourt which is still vacant on humanitarian grounds, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of equity of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.

IN TI{B HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TITB HONOURABI-E SIU JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND TI{B I-TONOURAI}LE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Writ Petition No.3365 of 2026 Dated: 11.02.2026 Between:

Vaila Deepak

...Petitioner

AND The Presiding Officer, Principal District and Sessions Court, Malkajgiri at Kushaiguda, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, Telangana State and otliers.

Respondents ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sum Kosh.v) I{eard Mr.G.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel fbr the petitioner and Mr.Vivek Jain, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The present is the writ petition seeking for appropriate direction to the respondents in considering the representation that the petitioner has made on 05.07.2024 and 30.12.2024 seeking the withdrawal of the earlier resignation letter that the petitioner has submitted, resigning from the post of Office Sub-Ordinate in the

District Court of Medchal - Malkajgiri District where he was appointr:d in the Court of First Additional Junior Civil Judge cum VI I I Acldl. Metropolitan Magistrate

3. l'he relevant dates nraterial fbr the disposal of the present r,vrit petition is that petitioner was appointed in the Medchal - Malkajlliri District Court Establishrnent vicle order of appointrnent dated 12.01 .2024. -fhe petitioner seerns to have been given joining on 25.01.2024. Having put-in a cor"rple of rnonth's service, under certain courpelling circutnstances at the dornestic fiont, the petitioner tendered his resignation on 01.04.2024 before the colnpet,lnt authority. The competent authority on due consideration ol'the resignation letter, accepted tl're resignation letter in a gap of rnore ttran three weeks on 23.04.2024 and the communication to that effi:ct is also reflected to lrave been sent to the petitioner.

4. Ilowever, after approxirnately three months time on 05.07.2024, the petitioner rcalized that it was a wrong decision on his part tendering resignation and prayed for the withdrawal of the same b,:fore the competent authority. Since, there was no decision

taken on the said representation, he made another reminder on 30.12.2024 on which also sincc there was no decision taken, the petitioner has frled the present rvrit petition

5. At this juncture, it woLrlcl be pertinent to take note ol'the Rule Position as it stands. Rule 30 of Telangana State Sub-orclinate Service Rules dealing rvith the aspect o1'resignation. The proviso given in the said Rules relevant so lar as the preserlt writ petition is concerned is reproduced herein:

"Provided further tlrat a meutber of a service may withdraw his resignation be{bre it takes effect: Provided also that no withdrawal of resignation shall be permitted, if the r,vithdrawal is made after the resignation takes effect."

I iI

6. The present case raised by the petitioner in this factuar backdrop and the Rule Position as it stands would not perrnit the petitioner to move an application tbr withdrawal beyond the date on which the application of resignation stood accepted.

1'. I{aving considered the aforesaid factual rnatrix of the case and alsr considering the Rule l)osition as it reflects today, we are of tltc cor:sidcrcd opinion that thc rcliel'souglrt ior by lhe petitioner rr,oulcl be rrot sustainablc. ilovvever, we make it clcar that the accclttaltcc ol'thc prcvious rcsignation should nof come in the way ol' thc pctitioner if he applies fb,^ fi'esh recruitrnent bcfore thc District Court E,stablishn-rent or the respondents anywherc 8 Witli the atbresaid observations, the n,rit petition stands rejected C.lnsequently, rniscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stancl ckrsccl. Thcrc shall be no order as to costs. SDLP.C. SULEKHA DEVI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To One CO to SRI G. RAVI KUIvIAR, Advocate [OP One CO to SRI VIVEK JAIN, Standing Counsel [OPUC] Two Ct) Copies MP BS ?nnq..

,/ HIGH COURT DATED tl110212026 DER WP.No.3365 of 202G REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2l l>lrS.