N. Srinivasulu v. The State of Telangana' Rep' by its Pnn-cip^al

Order

Petitioner seeks consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes for the panel year 2016-2017 as the DPC meet was not conducted and panel was not approved though suffrcient vacancies were available. The case of petitioner is that the 3d respondent uide

2. Reference dated 3O.O8.2O17 submitted proposals to the l"t respondent in connection with Departmenta-l Promotion Committee (DPC) meet for selection and promotion to the post of Joint Commissioners, Commercial Taxes for the panel year 2016-2017 wherein his name Frgured at Serial No. 1. The l"t respondent uide Merno dated 18.09.2017 informed the 3'd respondent that panel year 2016-2017 was lapsed, hence, requested to furnish fresh proposals to the Government for taking further action. Thereafter, the 3d respondent vide Reference dated 12. LO.2O|7 furnished the revised seniorit5r list of Assistant Commissioners (CT) published in Gazette No.155 dated O1.O4.2O14, as per which, his name reflected at Sl.No.134 2 in the seniority list (Assistant Commissioners) anri ztt serial No.1 in the proposals among 1l officers to be t:,:,nsidered for promotion as Joint Commissioner on ad hoc basi:. It is stated, the above action of resprndents is not in consonance with the Rules and Government (_rrders issued from time :o time. As per Rule 6(b) of the A . i,. State and Subordinate Service Rutes, 1996 and G.O.Ms ]rto.337, GAD (Ser.B) Depurrtment, dated 18.06. 1983, selection rurd promotion of Deputy Commissioners as Joint Commissioners dicl not take place in the panel year 2016-2O17 without any valr<l reasons. It is stated, th,: proposals of the 3'd respondent dateri 3O.Og_2017 for considertrtion of eight Deputy Commissioners f,rr promotion as Joint Cornmissioners of Commercial Taxes hr lrls good and their names have to be considered for the panel yct.r 2016-20lZ

as per Rule-6(b) and G.O.Ms.No.337, dared 18.0 r 1983 It is also stated, respondents should consider the prcposa-ls of the 3.d responde.nt dated l2.l}.21l7 numbering crc uen Deputy Commissione rs for promotion as Joint Commissi .r n ers for the panel year 2C'17 -2OI8 only a_fter considering the pr,rnosals dated 30.08.2017 for the panel year 2016-20lZ. Ttr,] action of responderrts -n overlooking the panel for the year )OI6-2OLZ ts J not in accordance with Government orders when there were vacancies during that panel Year. It is stated, while working as Depuqr Commissioner at Hyderabad (Rural Division), petitioner was implicated in a false case of possessing the properties disproportionate to known sources of income and ACB authorities have registered Crime No. 31 dated 12.O8.2O 13; he submitted reply dated 3O-O9-2O14 to the Notice issued by the Inspector of Police/I.O. ACB, HR, Hyderabad's dated 02-08-2014 and 12-O9-2OI4, stating that there are no disproportionate assets against him- Petitioner is stated to have submitted representations dated 24.08.2017 and O5.I2.2O17 to the l't respondent to consider his case for promotion as per sub-rule (b) of Rule 6 which states that 01st September of the year shall be reckoned as the qualiffing date to determine the eligibility of candidate for promotion. G.O.Ms.No.66, GA (Ser.C) Dept., dated 30.O1.1991 also clearly laid down that promotion should be deferred only when charges of misconduct are framed by the competent authority and served on the concerned delinquent offrcer or a charge sheet has been hled against him in criminal court, as the case may be. In the case of petitioner, neither charges of 4 misconduct are framed and served by Departmental Disciplinary Authority nor any charge sheet is filed in the criminal corrrt by the ACB authorities as on O1.r September of 20 16, the d ate to be reckoned for consideration t.cr promotion during the pransl year 2016-20lZ. It is stated that the l"t responcic.nt uid_e GO Rt-No.765, rlated 18. l2.2OlZ initiated disciplinarl proceedings alleging non-submission of Annual propert5r R,:rurns (ApRs) under Rule 2O of Telangana Civil Services ((,lassification, Control anrl Appeal) Rules, lggl, though I)et.itioner had promptly suitmitted ApRs. regularly from the year. ,:nding 199 1 to check date and though original copies of all those ApRs. submitted are very much available in the O/o CC:1 Telangana, Hyderabad. 'lhe action of respondents in not corrr-.ucting DpC for the panel year 2016-2017 and issuing article ri.charqes on 18.12.2O17 i:; with an intention purely to deprive zLr.rd deny him from the opportunity of consideration for promo ir;n as Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the panel year 20 17_ 20 18. It is stated, according to Rule 6(b) of A..r State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the respondc-rrts have to consider the ()ase of petitioner for promotion to thc Irost of Joint 5 Commissioner, Commercial Taxes for the panel year 2016-2017 only as he did not have any article of charge nor any charge sheet is frled against him as per G.O.Ms.No-66, dated 3O.O 1. 1991 which specifies a bar on consideration for promotion. While so, the Governm eot uide G.O.Ms.No.257, GA (Ser.C) Department dated 16.10. 1999 issued certain guidelines for promolion/transfer to higher categories of employees who are facing disciplinary cases, para 8 of which is as under:- " lf the off,rcer is not acquitted on merits in the criminal prosecution but purely on technical grounds and Government either proposes to take up the matter to a higher court or to proceed against him departmentally or if the ofEcer is not exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the ad hoc promotion granted to him should be brought to an end". In view of the same, his request should be considered based on Rule-6(b) of A.P.S. & S.S. Rules, 1996 and G.O.Ms.No.66, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 3O.O1.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.257, GA (Ser.C) Department dated 16, f O.1999. It is stated, in Writ Petition No.1839O of 2Ol4 on

26.07.2014 in a similar case of promotion from the cadre of 6 Deputy Ran ge Officer to Range Offrcer in the cast: booked by the ACB, this Court, taking into consideration G.O.Ilts.No.66 dated

30.01 . 199 1 , directed as under: " ,1.rect Government therefore, hereby promotion/ ilppointment by transfer to a higher post in re r;l)ect of ofEcers who are facing disciplinary proceedings or a criminal Ijse or whose conduct is rrnder investigation and whose case falls urder the group referred to t1e para 2 (ii) ofthe G.O. frrst read above, shirll be deferred. Only when charges of misconduct are framed by t L,t competent authority and served on the concerned delinquent offrcer or a charge iiBarnsr ntm in criminal court, as ttre (..r se rrav bc.. ^^^:-^+ 'n Writ Petition No. 1g390 of 2014, n(, ,rha-rge sheet has been fik:d by the prosecution agency before the competent criminal cou rt. So also, no charge memo was s (,rved by the competent arrthority on the delinquent oflicer with r-egard to the <heaf h.c h--h fil-^ L: alieged misc()nduct. Therefore, in terms of the at,ove G.O. the petitioners - Government was directed to consider the case of Respondent Iilo. I - employee for promotion to the 1>r.rst of Forest Range Office r in Zone Vl on ad hoc basis in trrr.ms of G.O. Rt.No.S 1 datcd Ol .02.2014. without reference to i he pendency of criminal ceLse within a period of two months frorri the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Tribunal rightly passed the impugned or<ler and that order needs no interference b,y this Court and the rvrit petition is liable to be dismissed, . 7 Accordingly, the Government complied with the orders of this Court and promoted Respondent No' 1 - employee therein to the category of Forest Range Oflicer' It is therefore' contended that since petitioner herein is similarly-placed, he is entitled for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner, Commercia,l Taxes for the panel year 2076-2017 ' In the counter filed on behalf of the 3'd respondent'

2. it is stated, after bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh, the total cadre strength allotted in the cadre of Joint Commissioner (CT) to the State of Telangana was four' As per Rule 6(b)' the period from I st September to 31"t August of the succeeding year should be reckoned for the purpose of determining the number of vacancies during the panel year, by conducting necessa5/ DPC. For the panel year 2016-17, the l't vacancy arose from 0\-06-2017, on retirement of Sri M' Linga Reddy; 2nd vacancy from 2O-O7 -2017, on promotion of Smt' B' Amrutha Lakshmi to the post of Addl. Commissioner (CT) and the 3'd vacancy from Ot-08-2O17, on retirement of Sri B' Vishnu Swaroop' Vide Reference dated 07-08-2O17, a proposal for selectiot of ad lac panel of Deputy Commissioner (CT) frt for promotion to the cadre of Joint Commissioner (CT) for the panel year 2016-17 8 was submitted to the Government, for filling; up of above eisting vacancies, with the following eli$ble Deputy Commissioners (CT) in terms of the existing seniorrt5r list; ) Sri N. SrinivasuJu (petitioner herein) I 2 3) 1l s) 6) 7) 8l Smt. P.R- Anuradha Sri U- Srinivasulu Sri D. irinivasulu, Smt. S Jayakameswar i Smt. K. Seetha La_kshmi Smt. K Haritha, Sri G. I)waralanadh Reddy, Due to siiorl perioci of panei year endirrg, DpC could not be conducted by the Government for the parrcl year 2016_ 17. Subseqrrently, by Memo dated lg_O9_2OlZ , irLformed that panel year 2016-17 rapsed and requested to f,rnish fresh proposals for filling up of the above vacarcies frr panel year 2017-la. l;resh detailed proposals were subnitted to the Government on 12-lO-2O17 . I t is to be noted that Crime No.3 I of 120 13 for the with Sect ion t3(2) of offence undt:r Section l3(l)(e) read Prevention of Corruption Act, lggg was registered against petitioner anrl Articles of Charges under Rule 20 c!. Teiangana Civil Senrices, (CCA) Rules l99l were framed; riepartmental inquiry is pe nding in that connection. Governmc rLt promoted three individu als as Joint Commissioners (CT) uid: G.O.Rt.No. 9 341, Revenue (CT-1) Department, dated O1'O8'2O18' Petitioner therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 12891 of 2O18 wherein this Court by order dated O8.O3.2019 directed respondents therein to consider the case of petitioner for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated: f 0-06- 1999 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Contempt Case No. 899 of 2Ol9 was also moved and it was closed pursuant to the order dated 08'08'2019 issued by the Government (competent authorit5r for promotion as Joint Commissioner C(CT)) uide Memo dated 08'08'2019 rejecting the request of the individua'l for promotion' Thereafter, petitioner fiIed another Writ Petition No' 4095 of 2O2O for not considering his case for promotion as Joint Commissioner (CT) as per G'O' Ms' No' 257' dated 10-06-1999 even after completion of two years from the date of DPC meeting held on 2O-OL-2O18' The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 26-02-2020 on the ground that the claim of petitioner is not valid and moreover, he did not challenge the order dated O8.O8.2O19, rejecting his request for promotion' Against the said order, Writ Appeal No' 209 of 2O2O was filed which also ended in dismissal ot 22-ll-2O21' The Division I ( f i l0 Bench observed that law has been crystallized lry the Honble supreme court and it is not a case of an officer, \\,ho is facing a singular departmental enquiry, but it is a case of irn offrcer, who is facing two departmental enquiries that too wher<:in the charge sheet has t,een issued for imposition of major prr.rrishment. Not only this, he involved in criminal case ald is facrrrs prosecution under the f)revention of Corruption Act. Graltin 3 promotion to such an officer would amount to granting premium and therefore, itr the considered opinion of this Court, the State Government was weil within its power to reject tlLr: claim of the applicant fol ad hoc promotion also. It was made :lear that the Division Ber,ch has not expressed aly opinion or merits so far as the depar tmental enquiry or the crimina.l case rs concemed. The order passed by this Court is confined only rn respect of promotion to petitioner to the next higher post per tiing crimina_l case and the departmental enquiry. It is stated that DpC was corducted and Government promoted Smt_ K. Seetha Laxmi and Smt. K. Haritha as Jcint Commissione rs (CT) uide G.O.Rt.Nc 22.L2.2O19 firr the panel year 20lg_19 ald for tL< 2O2O-21, u le another G.O.Rt.No. 145, dated panel year 373, dated

24.O3.2021 11 promoted five individuals. It is noticed that Government have not promoted petitioner as Joint Commissioner (CT) since ACB Case is pending in Disproportionate assets case and Government uide G-O Rt.No'765, dated 18-12-2017 ' franed' Articles of Charges under Rule 2O of Telangana Civil Services (CCA) Rules 199 I , the departmental inquiry ordered is also pending. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. penalised. It In the reply hled by petitioner, it is stated that he is 3. fully eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax for the panel year 2016-17 and for the lapse committed by Respondents, he could not be is further stated, ACB case was registered on on the ground of alleged acquisition of 12.O8.2013 disproportionate assets to the known source of income and the same was pending during 2016-77 and' 2Ol7-18' Respondent No. I issued permission for prosecution in the said ACB vide G.O.Ms.No.2S2, dated 16-12.2017 which is subsequent to panel yeat 2016-17. Since Respondents did not furnish the copy of the above G.O., he was constrained to file Writ Petition No.26609 of 2Ol9 and as per the directions of this Court' 12 Respondents furnished the copy of G.O.Ms No.2g2, dated 16.L2.2O17 . Thereafter, he frled Writ petition No,:t8437 of 2Ot9 questioningl the said G.O., dated 16.12.2011 arrr:l the same is pending. It is a_lso further stated, as per the du.ections of the Government, Respondent No.3 sent fresh proposals for selection of ad lac panel of Deputy Commissioner (CT) fit icr promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner (CT) for the parel ,,,ear 2OIT-lg, wherein a-lso, his narne was shown at Sl.No_1. bul, the DpC met on 2o.o1'2crr8 approved the names of three jurriors without considering his case as the charge memo is s lred by the G.O.Rt.No.765 Revenue (Vig_II, Department Govemment in dated 18.12.2017 is pending. It is stated, the charge levelled against him rvas he failed to submit annual property returns to th( Department during tJle entire service except for 2Ol2 and djcl not obtain permission fr;r acquiring immovable properties prrrchased by him. He expleLined that he furnished annua_l proper:r,, returns for all the years and submitted acknowledgements alr;rr. So far as the 2"d charge is concerned he obtained pe:_rtrission for purchase of properties which are in the name of hrr_r:;elf ald his 13 family members. In the above said proceedings, the Government appointed an Enquiry Offrcer on 17.07.2021 and the same is pending. It is also stated, he frled Writ Petition No'12891 of 2018 questioning G.O.Rt.No. 142 dated 22'O3'2O1a for the panel year 2Ol7 -18 on the ground that it is contrar5r to Rule 6(b) and contrary to orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.337, dated 18'06' 1983' This Court without going into the merits disposed of the same on 08.03.2019 with a direction to Respondents to consider the case of Petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner in terms of G.O.Ms-No.257, dated 10'06'1999 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order' Since no action was taken by Respondents, he was constrained to file Contempt Case No.899 of 2Ol9 wherein, after receipt of notice, Respondents issued proceedings uide Memo dated O8'08'2O19 rejecting his request for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner (CT). One of the grounds for rejection is that G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 to consider ad ltoc promotion to higher cadres of employees who are facing disciplinary cases wherein it is stated to consider od lac promotion to the t4 followrng category or employees only after compc:rr1on of 2 years from the date of Departmental promotion { )ommittee or Screening Committee meeting in which thc i; cases were considered for the first time. promotion to of 2O2O again It is stated further, he liled Writ pcr.il:ron No. 4095 seeking a direction to considcr- his case for the post of joint Commissrr,ner as per G.O.Ms.No.1257, dated 10.06. 1999 after completic rr of tu.o years from the date of DpC meeting which was held or, 2O.O\.2}lg. However, this Court dismissed the above Wr t petition on 26.02.2020 on the ground that petitioner r; facing two disciplinaqr proceedings and one criminal proceec mgs in which sanction for prosecution is already granted and ?r:titicner has not challenged the orders dated Og.08.2019 rejecting his request for oromotion. euestioning the above o -iler, he filed writ Appeal No. 2o9 of 2o2o and the same is dismrssed by order dated 22.17.'2021. He approached the Hontrle Sr.preme Court by filing SLF, (Civil) Dairy No.l489 of 2022 anct rhe same is pending for r:onsideration, meanwhile, Respondcrr.t s promoted number of jtrniors to him as Joint Commissionc:. (CT). Wnt 15 Petition No.4095 of 2O2O and the present Writ petition are flled seeking different and distinct reliefs.

4. Heard Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, Iearned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. K. Kiranmayee, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Ms. A. Satya Sree, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Services (Home).

5. Having considered the respective sutrmissions ald perused the record, it may be noted that the a-tlegations against petitioner are that he failed to hle Annual Property Returns disclosing movable and immovable property in his name and his family members, which is mandatory requirement under Service Rules; and further there are allegations that he amassed assets disproportionate to known sources of income, thereby an ACB case is pending against him. A perusal of counter affrdavit would disclose that with regard to promoting candidates as Joint Commissioners for Panel Year 2016-17, the date to be reckoned is l"t September and a list is stated to have been prepared by including petitioner as one of the candidates under consideration for promotion; however, owing to State bi-frrrcation and incidental activities, promotions could not be made by ,t6 considerin€: Panel year 2OI6-LZ candidates. H,rrvever, Iater a Panel Year 2OtT-lB list appears to have beerL prepared, by which time charges have been framed against pelrtioner and a copy of the charges was served. It is the vehemer t contention of petitioner that had the panel y ear 2076_17 prrrnotions been done, he ',\,ould have stood a chance to get l) romotcd; and respondent authorities, with an intention to depri,rr.: the chalces of promotion to petitioner, delayed promotion lc: panel year 2016-17 anrl promoted his juniors in 2Ol7_lg by raking excuse that petitioner is involved in a criminal case. 6. tn this backdrop, a perusal of the G ( ).Ms_No.257, Genera-l A<lministration (Service C) Depart 0 ) ent, dated 16.10. 1999 which govern s ad hoc promotion, i\ (,Lrlcl disclose that ad hoc p,r6ryr6116p granted to an employee woul(:[ come to an end in the foJlowing circumstances: (a) if ttLe oflicer was not acquitted on merits i .r the (:riminal prosr:cution but purely on technica.l grounds; (b) Government proposes to take up the matter to .rgher Court or proceed against him Deparknentally. (c) If the officer is not exonerated in the Departmental I:,rocec.C,ngs. So, under G.O.Ms.No.2ST, tine ad. hrr promotion would come to an end if the case of the offrcer falis ,r,lthin zrnv of t7 the above three conditions enumerated in the G'O'Ms'No'257' Further, even according to petitioner, ACB case came to be registered way back in 2013, and respondent-Government issued permission for prosecution on 16-12'2017' Furthermore, it is not the case of petitioner that he was singled-out and discarded from the List of candidates for the Panel year 2016- 17, as the entire Panel Year 2016-17 was postponed for administrative reasons, and promotions were given for candidates who were considered in Panel 2Ol7-la' However, by that time petitioner was already facing criminal prosecution and not cleared/acquitted in the proceedings. Further, even as per the writ aflidavit, petitioner

8. knocked the doors of this Court with this grievance of non- consideration for promotion as Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax in several writ petitions; the latest one being Writ Petition No.4O95 of 2O2O by raising the ground that as per G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06. 1999, his candidature was not considered for promotion even after completion of two years from the date of DPC in 20 18 and that Writ Petition was dismissed oo 26.02.2020 on the ground that petitioner did not challenge the earlier Order dated 08.08'2019 passed by the et-;:'.- :.' Department rejecting his request for promotion (consequent to the order cated O8.O3.2019 in W.p.No.l2g91 ot :2018, against which a Ccntempt Case was also filed in C.C.N:,899 of 2}lg, and later respondent authorities considered ano rejected the request of petitioner for promotion). 9. The Order in Writ petition No.4O59 r>t 2O20, dated 26.02.2010 was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 20!r of 2O2O and the Divisiou Bench dismissed the Appeal or 22.11.2021. Petitioner thereafter filed SLp before the Honble Supreme Court and the same is pending; therefore, as on today, tt:e grievance of petitioner ttLat his candidafure has not been co nsidered for promotion e..'en after two years since the last DFC of 201g, is pendinq before the Hon,ble Supreme Court. lO. Coming back to the present Writ petrtron, it is not in dispute that petitioner, as on today, is facing two departmental proceedings, apart from a criminar czrse under the Prevention ol Cormption Act. The outcome of the oroceedings nevertheless would have a bearing on the F rrlmotion of petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.257. However, in sr far as the grievance in this Writ petition is concemed, il cannot be disputed that postponement of promotions based or paner year l9 2OL6-L7 was across the board for all candidates, and it is not petitioner alone who was left out without consideration for the Panel Year 2016-17 . I I . Merely because petitioner could have stood a chance of promotion had the DPC for Panel Year 2O16-L7 happened, and the postponement of DPC Panel Year 2016-17 happened due to delay on the part of respondent authorities, and subsequent developments of charge sheet and criminal case against him in 2017 deprived him of consideration for Panel Year 2Ol7-18, and such deprivation is solely because of respondents due to postponement of DPC 2016-17 is not a plausible ground either to canvass or countenance. The respondent-Government in the capaciqr of an employer is well within its powers to enlist the candidates for promotion for a particular Panel Year if they are found eligible as on the date of such enlistment, and consider them for promotion if they continue to b€ eligible even as on the date of such consideration; and accordingly promote them. However, in the instant case, DPC Panel Year 2016-17 list might have been prepared, however, promotions itself were postponed due to administrative reasons, thereby DPC Panel yeat 2016-17 hrad 20 Iapsed; and a fresh Panel Year 2017-18 had to bc prepared. It is to be noted that, unless the Rules otherwise ten -rr.tiveiy permit by way of a Government Order, a candidate shoull be eligible in all respects as on the date of a Parrel Year, and r:.:rntinue to be eligible in atl respects as on the date of considering for actual promotion. 'lherefore, petitioner, as a potential < elndidate, can only mainta.Ln a ciean record and be eligible both irt the time of enlistment br a DPC Panel Year and also ar the time of considering for actual promotions, and he r tannol. have grievance for not being in the list for a particula I Panel Year (2017 18 in this case) for reasons that make him ro be ineligible to be in the list.

12. 'lhough petitioner contends that er,ren as per G.O.Ms.No.66, Articles of Charge have neither ber:r frarned nor a charge mr:mo served on the petitioner by the cj.ate of Panel Year 2OL6-17, and therefore he deseryes conside -lttion against DPC for Panel Year 2016-17, it is to be noted that the DPC for Panel Year 2016-L7 itself was not proceeded furtL.cr artd it had lapsed; and the respondent-Government had redr zrwn the DPC Panel for 2O'.7-18 and by the date of DPC for Par-,;r.l Yeat 2Ol7- 18, the petitioner became ineligible for conside;-irtion as per 2l G.O.Ms.No.257 as petitioner was not acquitted of criminal case against him. The little window of argument that petitioner intends to canvass that he ought to have been promoted for DPC 2OL6-L7 year itself cannot be countenanced for the reason that DPC for 2016-17 did not proceed further except for initial paperwork of enlisting the candidates. Even considering a hypothetical situation that DPC 2016-17 proceeded further and in the interregnum period of enlistment and actual promotions, charges are framed against petitioner, even then petitioner cannot claim promotion by operation of G.O.Ms.No.257. It is also to be noted that even though ACB case was registered way back in 2013, petitioner was rightly considered for enlistment for DPC 2016-17 as per G.O.Ms.No.66, however, as DPC 2O16- 17 got delayed and lapsed, and by the time of DPC 2OL7-18, petitioner became ;nsligrble, and therefore, no prejudice can be attributed to respondent authorities.

13. In the instant case, as DPC for Panel Year 2OL6-I7 had not proceeded further after enlistment of candidates, and promotions based on the l,ist of Panel Year 2016-17 having not taken place across the board for all candidates, and petitioner's name not included in 2017-18 due to criminal proceedings \ t \ 22 n against him, this Court does not see any illegality rrr irregularity occasioned to petitioner under Rule 6(b) of G.O, Ms.No.33Z. In that view of the matter, Writ Petition is liable to br dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Writ. petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.|.O,OOO/- (Rupees Ten thousand only to be paid to the Telangar ra High Court Advocates, Association. 15. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applicrrtions, if any shall stand <:losed. MEMORANDU M OF COSTS w.P.NO.3 069 0F 2018 Costs Quantified b,l Hon'ble Court (That the Petitioner herein is directed to' oav costs of _Rs.10,O00/- (Rupees i;i ,l,llo.uslnd .Onty) in favour' of Tetangana IigL lj.yrt Advocates Association, -High Uourt tor the State o. Telangana. I TOTAT Fls. Ps 10,000-00 10,000-00 SD/. ASSr I s . VIJAYA LAKSHMI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII StcnoN oFFICER To, Telangana. [OtJTl

1. One CC to Ms. K. KTRAN MAYEE Advocate tOpUCJ 2. Iqo CCs to Gp FOR SERVTCES (HOME), High Court for the State of 3. The Secretary. Telanoana High Cou(, Advocates Associiltion, High Court 4. The Regiskar (Judicial-l), High Court for the State of Telalqana. . Two CD Copie:; 5 KKS KKS Buildings. HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 i ORDER i-,. r . ':..::_ . j.t.a; \ ,j"\. .J () 18ii Im[ WP.No.3069 of 2018 'l D DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS 15' 1