The High Court · 2025

The Registrar (Recruitment), The High court for the State of Telangana High Court Building Hyderabad. .....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 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the Notification vide., ROC No. 59/2020-RC Dt.21l10l2o2o issued by the 2nd Respondent for filing up the post of District Judge (Entry Level) by Direct recruitment, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and iniquitous in nature, opposed to principles of natural justice, u nconstitutional and contrary to Telangana State Judicial (service and Cadre) Rules, 20.17 and consequently set-aside the said Notification vide., ROC No. 59/2020-RC Dt.21l10l2020issued by the 2nd Respondent in the interest of justice. -,,.-7. |.A.NO:1 OF 2021 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 stay all further proceedings in filling up for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) by Direct recruitment through Notification vide., ROC No. 59/2020-RC Dt.2111012020 issued by the 2nd Respondent pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. PASUMARTHY PAVITHRA SAl, LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M.MALLIKARJUN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES-ll Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI T.P.S.HARSHA The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITI ON No.6496 OF 2021 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Jusrice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Ms.Pasumarthy Pavithra Sai, leamed counsel representing, Mr.M. Mallikarjun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.M. Shalini, leamed Govemment Pleader for Services-Il, for respondent No.1 and Mr. T.P.S. Harsha, learned counsel for Kopal Sharrafl, for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, it has been informed by the leamed counsel appearing for the respondents that by virtue of interim order granted by this Court on 17 .03.2021 , the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination of District Judge (Entry Level) that was to be held on

20.03.2021 as also 21.03.2021.

3. As per the interim order dated 17.03.2021 granted by this Court, the petitioner had appeared in the examination. However, it has been informed that the petitioner could not qualif,z in the examination. Since the petitioner could not qualifu in the examination, the respondents proceeded with the recruitment .-I\ '*:5ryq+-, \ *'- r :.i:;FiF ...]'3rr..' ' '.41.ar.. _\.4 - : -L\, ... 2 process and completed the same by giving appointments to the most meritorious candidates. 4 In the light of the said development, the leamed counsel for the respondents submit that the matter, therefore, has become infructuous, as nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon in the present Writ Petition and the matter so far as the age relaxation is concerned also is now of only an academic interest.

5. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the interim order granted by this Court on 11 .03.2021 was something which was not sought for at the first instance. Secondly, it was contended that as the interim order was granted on 11 .03.2021 and the examination was held in just three days time i.e., on 20.03.2021 and 21.03.2021, the petitioner did not get sufficient time to prepare himself for the examination-

6. Both these contentions in the opinion of this Bench is not sustainable fbr the simple reason that once when the petitioner has challenged the notihcation so far as the upper age limit is concerned, it is presumed that the interim relief would be granted by permitting him to participate in the examination and the ., petitioner accepted the said interim relief with wide open eyes and has also tried his luck by appearing in the examination as perrnitted by the Division Bench vide its order dated 17.03.2021 Now having got disqualified in the said examination, the petitioner cannot be permitted to tum around and challenge the notification itself, which otherwise was challenged only so far as the petitioner being excluded from participating in the rccluirment process on account of him having crossed the upper age limit.-l-he lelief sought for was permitted by way of aforesaid interim ordcr by the Division Bench, after which the petitioner cannot claim any extra time to be granted for preparation for appearing in the \ written examination \ 7 After the publication of the notification, it is not expected from the petitioner, if he was a serious candidate to have been preparing for the said examination all along without waiting tbr any notification to be published, whereby only if he would find himself eligible for parlicipation thereafter would he start his preparation for the examination. Such a prayer made by the petitioner is truly not acceptable. So far as the age relaxation is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that issue is only of ,. L.. t,.|.'-l^I.x 4 '\. ':: \: an academic interest, as the petitioner had been permitted to participate ir the examination, inspite of his having crossed the maximum age limit.

8. The instant Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed at this junctute. 'fhere shall be no order as to costs Consequentiy, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// S MA \rs LLIKARJUNA RAO TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER t he State of Telangana at Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-Il, High Court Hyderabad [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI MAGHAM MALLIKARJUN REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRI T.P.S.HARSHA, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies To 1 SA LS Ig- -/:.-:::\ .\- - .,,._ _,./r/(, \

1.': |'' .,, l .v 24 siP mr + .J t-. ', .,.' :/ .)',''.,i ' 2' ---...1.--''" HIGH COURT DATED:1110812025 ORDER WP.No.6496 ot 2021 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. q L1