G. SASHIKALA v. The Director
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: PULLA KARTHIK
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-11-27. G. SASHIKALA v. The Director. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3301 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENW SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE EIiI=FI=MI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK IIilRI] fiRl NO: I oF 2017 G- SASHIKALA, D/o. Kistaiah, Aged 38 years, Senior Assistant 0/0 Assistant qlrecto_r, We[are Disabled And Senior Cftizens, RR District R/o. H. No. 6-96/74, Plot NO. 77, Sumithr:a Enclave, Jellelaguda Meerpet, Hyderabad. EIITj] 1. of Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens 2. of Disabled and Senior Citizens, Govemment of Andhra Pradesh, M. J. Road, rabad 3. The State of Andhra represented its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat BuildIngs, 4. The Assistant Director, 0/0. ioner, Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens, Ranga Ground FlooC Sneha Silver Jubilee Bhavan, Collector s .
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue to grant appropriate relief, declaring the Proceedings charge memo No. A1/40531201O daled N. 01. 2014 issued by the 1 sf respondent including proceedings No. A. 11 f45212007 Dated 17. 03. 2011 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide violofinq Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of india and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. P. V. KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER :t o mirm N No. L7 o DE Toda5,, when the matter is taken up for h3aring, Sri Naren. der, learned counsel representing Sri P'V' Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in spite of his best efforts, no instructions could be obtained in the matter.
However, it is prayed to grant liberty to the petitioner t,r avail appropriate legal remedies, if he so desires' 2. In view of the above, as no purpose would be served by keeping th(: matter pending, the Writ Petition (TR) is closed, granting liberty as prayed for by the petitioner' Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in ttris Writ - Petition (TR), shall stand closed' No costS ^ . SD'. T. SRINIVASA REODY h /,TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to S;Rl. P V KRISHNAIAH, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES lll ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . IOUTI 3. Two CD Copies DAN G ) ATED:2i? 111/,2025 ,! S fA ( o () 7tl7r 1 I ttAR ( ORDER . T * t WP(TR). No. 1706 ot 2O17 cLosrNG THE WR|T PETTTTON (TR) WITHOUT COSTS fl"> C
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.