Vislavath Rahul, S/o v. Laxman Nayak'. Age

Counsel for the writ Petitioner: SRI MUNUGA SATEESH Counsel for the writ Respondents No'1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the writ Respondent No'4: SRI M'V'RAMA RAO' SC FOR TSLPRB WRIT PETIT ION NO: 6407 0F 2024 Between: Vislavath Rahul, S/o V. Laxman Nayak'. Age. 20 years' i;;;ffi;d Tiianai, uacnanpalle, Mahabubnasa(M)' Ma"ha6ubnagar Dist. - R/o H. no. 4-12 RamchandraPur, ...PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana, Department, Secretariat Bu Rep. by its Prrncipal Secretary. Home (Legal) ildings, Hyderabad

2. The Director General of Police, Government of Telangana Hyderabad' 3. The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar' tvlahabubnaqar District' 4 Telanoana State Level Police Recruitment Board' DGP Office Complex' Lakdi i, p"6L Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman (As Der court order dated 03'04'2024 vide l'A'No'2 of 2O24 in WP'No'6407 5t z6ii, ..ip"ndent No'4 is impleaded') ...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, to declare the action of the 4th respondent in not considering the proceedings of 3rd respondent vide No' A3/Rect'- 4/DPO/MBNR/2O24,date"1S'O2-2O24forconsiderationofpetitionersre- medicalexaminationasillegal,arbitraryandviolativeofPrinciplesnatural justice as well as violative of Article 14'21 of constitution and lndia consequently direct the respondent rl forthwith to conduct re-medical examination of petitioners' and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case instead of it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, set aside the impounding, proceedings A3/Rect.- 4/DPO/MBNR/2O24, date: 19-02-2024, issued by the 3rd respondent by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 1 6 of the Constitution of lndia. (As per court order dated 03.04.2024 vide lA.No.3/2024 in WP.NO.6407 of 2O24 prayer is amended.) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petitron under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavrt frled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interinl order directing the respondents to conduc: re- medical examination sending the petitioners to Osmania general hospital within a specified time Pending disposal of the main writ petition and dee.n fit and proper in the circumstances of the case- lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Between: Telanr;ana State Level Police Recruitment Board, DGP Office Complex, Lakdi ka po<>|, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman. ...PETITIONER ANO 1 Vislavath Rahul, S/o V Sugurgadda Thanda, Mahatrubnagar Dist. . Laxman Nayak, Age 20 years, Ryo H. no. 4-12 Machanpalle, Mahabubnaga(M), Ramchandrapur,

2. The S;tate of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home (Legal) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

3. The Drrector General of Police, Government of Telangana Hyderabad. 4- The S'-rperintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 VACATE the lnterim Orders dated 29.O4.2O24 in WP No. 640l of 2024. Counsel for the writ Petitioner: SRI MUNUGA SATEESH Counsel for the writ Respondents No.l to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the writ Respondent No.4: SRI M.V.RAMA RAO, SC FOR TSLPRB WRIT PETITION NO: 6412OF 2024 Between:

1. R-Gopal, s/o R.Shanker, Age. 30 years Rl/o H.No.10S4, Daku Thandal Latpalle, Latpally,Bij inapalle, Nagarkurnool dist. Mandal, Gurakonda, Devarkadra, Mahabubnagar Dist-

2. K.Raghu, s/o K.Buchanna, Age. 29 years R:/O H-No.485, Devarakadra 3. G-Anjaneyulu, s/o G.Poshappa, Age. 29 years RyO H.No.1-58, 4. H.Ramakrishna, sio Anjilaiah, Age. 29 years RyO H.No.00-1, Abhangapatnam, Abhangapatnam,Mahabubnagar dist. Abhangapatnam, Abhangapatnam, Mahabubnagar dist- 5- Mudavath Srinu, s/o Mudavath Megya Naik, Age. 28 years Rl/o Karremmachelakathanda, Chinadarpalli, Hanwada Mandal, Chinadarpalli, Mahabubnagar dist. ..,PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 4 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home (Legal) Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad The Director General of Police, Government of Telangana Hyderabad. The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, DGP Office Complex, Lakdi ka pool, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Chairman (As per court order dated 03.04.2024 vlde l.A.No.2 of 2O24 in WP-No'6412 oI 2024, respondent No.4 is impleaded.) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Artlcle 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, to declare the action of the 4th respondent in not considering the proceedings of 3rd respondent vide No. A3/Rect.- 4/DPO/MBNR/2I24, date: 1g-oz-2o24 for consideration of petitioners re- medical examination as iflegar, arbitrary and viorative of principres naturar justice as well as violative of Article 11,21 ot constitution and lndia consequently direct the respondent 4 forthwith to conduct re+nedical examination of petitioners, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case instead of it is prayed that this Hon'bre court may be pleased to issue a writ order or That more particurarry one in the nature of wRrr oF MANDAMUS, set aside the impounding proceedings A3/Rect.-4lDpo/MBNR/2024. date: 19'02'2024, issued by the 3rd respondent by dectaring the same as iflegar, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Con:;tatution of tndia_ (As per court order dated 03.04.2o24 vide rA.No.3/2024 in wp.No.6412 of 2O24 prayer is amended.) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High rrourt may be preased to grant interim order directing the respondents to conduc, re-medicar examination sending the petrtioners to osmania generar hospitar within a specified time Pending disposal of the main writ petition and deenr fit and proper in the circumstance s of rc case. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Between: Telangana State Level police.Re^gruitment Board, D(;p Office Complex, Lakdi ka pool. Hyderabad. Rep. by its Chairmin' AND ...PETITIONER Latpalle.. Larpaily, Bij inapafl e,"Nagarktimoof diit.

1. R.Gopal, s/o R_Shanker,..Aq9 30 years Rl/o H.No.10$4, Daku Thanda, 2. KRaghu, s/o K.Buchanng, lsur_ 29 years R/O H.No.4g5, Devarakadra 3. G..Anjaneyutu, s/o G.poshappa, Age. 29 y,)ars RyO H.No.1_58 4. H-Ramakrishna, s/o Anjitaiah, . .4Se 29 years RyO H.No.00_1. Mandal Gurakonda. Devarkadri, i,4.Gotunag"iils, Abhangaparnam. Abhangapatndrh, tuaha-bubn;dar di ;r - Abhangapatnam, Abhangapitnarn, trtatLOrOnalar fl,t. '*

5. Mudavath Srinu, s/o Mudavath Megya Naik, Age. ZE years Rl/o Karremmachelakathanda, Chinadarpalli, Hanwada Mandal, Chinadarpa i, Mahabubnagar dist.

6. The State of Telangana,. Bep. 9y its Princ.ipal Secretary, Home (Legal) Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

7. The Director General of Police, Govemment of Telangana Hyderabad. 8. The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to VACATE the lnterim Orders dated 29.04.2024 in WP No. 6412 of 2024. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the writ Petitioner: SRI MUNUGA SATEESH Counsel for the writ Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the writ Respondent No.4: SRI M.V.RAMA RAO, SC FOR TSLPRB CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1141OF 2024 Petition under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act lg7l praying that the High Court may be pleased to issue Notice to the respondents, cause enquiry and Punish the respondents for violation and willful disobedience of the order made in W.P. No.6407 o( 2024dt.291O412O24. Between Vislavath Rahul, s/o V Sugurgadda Thanda Mahabubnagar Dist. . Laxman Nayak Age. 20 years, Machanpalle, Mahabubnaga(M). Rl/o Fl.no. 4-12 Ramchandrapur AND Sri. V.V.Srinivasa Rao lPS, Chairman Ttre Telargana State Level police Recruitment Board DGP Office Complex, Lakdi ka poo{, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUNUGA SATEESH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.V.RAMA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1149 OF 2024 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt o. Courts Act 1971 praying that the High Court may be pleased to issue Notice t I the respondents, cause enquiry and Punish .the respondents for violation and rvillful disobedience of.the order made in W.P. No.6398 of 2024 dated 29_04_2024 Between: T.Ramulu, Sio T. Chandraiah, Aged about 37ycars, Rt/o. H.No.3_22 street/viilage, Gat ieuda, Batanagar tila;dal. M;hi ih.ifinrg'"l. M.inrilb;;A; AND Sri. V.VSnnrvasa Rao lpS,.The. Telangana State Level police Recruitment Board DGp Office Comptex, Lakdi ka po".l HvJ"i"tJiGp. biii. il;t,riin." ...PETITIONER ...CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUNUGA SATEESH Counsel for the Sole Respondent: SRI M.V.RAMA RAO CONTEMPT CASE N O: 1150 OF 2024 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1g71 praying that the High court may be preased to issue Notice to the respondents, cause enquiry and Punish the respondents for vioration and wi[fur disobedience of the order made in W. p. No. 6412 of 2OZ4 dt. 2glo4l2o24. Between:

1. 8.. Gopal, S/o R. Shanker. Aged bout 30 years, pJo. H. No. 10- 64. Dakri Thanda, Latpafie, Latpaily. Bijinipaile, Nagariuintot Oist 2. K. Raghu, S/o. K. B^uchanna. Aged about 29 years, R:/o. H. No. 4g5. Devarakadra t\randat, Gurakonda, o'era*iOri, frain?,UJUiiab-ai Dili. "" -"" 3. G...Anjaneyutu, S/o. G. poshappa, -A9ed about 29 vears, Rt/o. H. No. 1_ 5g. Abhangapatnam, Abhangapatridrn, vitiOrOnigir aist. 4. H. Ramakrishna. S/o_ Anjilaiah. Aged about 29 ye.ars, Ryo_ H. No. O0_ 1. 5. Mudayath Srinu, S/o. Ivludgvath Abhangapatnam, Abhangapatnarn, "tr4af,iOrUnagaiA Megya Naik. Ag€d about 2g years, Rt/o. -bdii;;,pn:; Karemmachetakarhanda, CrrrnaOarpEft i Hi"*iOt -fra,"Orf Mahabubnagar Dist. st. , . AND ...PETITIONERS Sri. V. V. Snnivasa Rao lPS, The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board DGP Office Complex, Lakdi ka pool. Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman- ...CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MUNUGA SATEESH Counsel for the Sole Respondent: SRI M.V.RAMA RAO The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMA'YARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.6398,6407, AND 6412 of 2o.24 AND C.C.Nos.1141, 1149 AND LLSO of 2024 6OMMON ORDER: All these Writ Petitions are hled for the following reliel ".....to issue an appropiate order or direction more partiailarlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus to declare the actiort of the 4ttl respondent in not considering the proceedings of 3'd respondent uide No A3/Rect.- 4/ DPO/ MBNR/2024, date 19-O2-2024 for consideration of petitiorLers re-medical examination as illegal, arbitrary and uiolatiue of Principles of natural justice as well os utolatiue of Article 14,21 of constitution and tndia and consequentlg, direct the respondent No.4 forthtuith to conduct re-medical examination of petitior,"ers and pass . . . . " I

2. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions and the Contempt cases is one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.

3. Heard Sri Munuga Sateesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home ) appearing, for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4

4. For convenience, the facts stated in S/.P.No.6398 of 2024 are discussed as under: Learned counsel for the petitioner sulrmits that the Telangantr State tevel Police Recruitment Boerrd (TSLPRB) issued a Notihcation to initiate the recruitm,-'t1t process i-rr filling up the posts of Constables in Tclirngana Police. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner appe'rrt:d the main written examination and a selection list was prepared. On the day of verihcation of the testimonials, the petitioncr was medically examined. 4(ii) Learned counsel for the peti -ione i' ftirthcr submits that the petitioner was enrolled as a Hotne (iuard vide General No.7gg1 on 18.03.2011 vide D,.-l No.33/2Off . Doctors of Government Headquartc rs Hospital, Mahabubnagar, conducted the petitioner's medical examination, and they opined that the petitioner is medically unfit for various reasons. In the said docttmcnt No.A3/Rect.4 /DPO /MBNR/2024, datect l(t.O2.2O24, tlre , 3 reasons for unfit are mentioned as B/L Lower Limb Vericovines, and his case was rejected, but mentioned explicitly in the document that the candidates are repeatedly approaching and submitting their individual representation to consider their request for conducting the re-medical examination. 4(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner approached Sp and DGp to conduct a re-medical exam because other candidates who were on the list, along with him, completed their re_ examination. But they said that they would conduct the said re-examination very soon, but they dragged on the matter for frivolous reasons. Till now, the petitioner has not received *y information regarding his re_Medical examination. The other candidates who completed their medical examination, rvhich is in the final stage and their narnes are in the final list and were sent for training. On the other hand, the petitioner is still waiting for his f,rnal selection with a lot of hope. 4 4(iv) Learned ccunsel for the petit oner further submits that the petitioner even though m:dically unfit, successfully completed his second stage (physicirl events like run-event and long jump, shot put), then the question o[ unf-rt does not arise with the reason state,l in the table. It clearly shows the Selection Committee caused gross errors against articles 14 and 16 according to the Indian Constitutional law. Learned counsel for the 1;etitioner relied upc,n the decision of this Court in W.P No.l8093 of

2020. decided on 14.O7.2023. Accordin5Jl', prayt:d to allow the Writ Petition

5. At ttrc time of admission, this Cou:t passecl the following rnterim direction: "[n uretu of the submi.ssions made by the rttspectrue partiezs and hauing regard to the fao s and cirattnstances of the case, respondent iVo.4 is clirected to co,tsider the cose of the petitioner for sen,Tutg lint either to Osmania General Hospital, Hgder ctbad or Gand.hi Hospital, Seannderabad, for the purpose of co ndi tctir Lg re-me dical examination, withcut :'e fe re rt.ce to impugned proceedings dated 19.02.2O24, tuLtl'tin a periorl of four (O4) ueeks from tlrc date of recc'i1tt of a copy of llLis order." 5 Since respondent No.4 did not comply with the above order, the petitioners hled Contempt Cases.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter stating that the Chairman, Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (the Board) had issued 7 Notihcations and the petitioner is concerned with Notihcation Rc.No.41lRect/Admn-l/2022 dated 25.O4.2022. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process vide Reg.No. 1480631 and was selected as SCT Police Constable (Civil) in Mahabubnagar District subject to verilication of antecedents, certilicates Medical Examination/Fitness. 6(il The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar District, vide letter dated 27.O4.2O24, informed that the petitioner was sent for Medical Examination on O4.O2.2O24 and was declared rnedically UNFIT due to (B/L lower limb, Vericovines with perforators incompetence). The Medical examination of the petitioner was conducted by the Doctors of Government Headquarters Hospital, Mahabubnagar, and as per the medical examination report 6 "Srrnerficial - -r -_ __--- engorged veins over the B/L thigh regicn lower part opined posterior region" and, in the last Column No.26 of the report, the petitioner was declared unfit. As per rule 14(CXii) of the SCT Rules issued in GO Ms.No.97 of Home (Legal) De partment, dated 01.05.2006, can(lidates having ailment ,:f Vericovines shall not be ccnsidered for appointment Lo any post specified in the rules. 6(ii) In the recruitment Notihcrrtion, dated

25.04.202,2 issued by the Board, it was clezLrly mentioned at Para 18 E(vi) under Note In order i( aver t gcit ing disappointed at a later stage, candidates irre advised to have themselves examined by a Civil Surgeon before applying lbr the examination to ensure that they meet the prescribe<l Physica-l and Medical Standards. The required Medical Standards were also mentioned in the Notification. SCT rules 1999 were arnended vide G.O.Ms.No.14 of Home (Legal) Department, dated O8.O4.2O22 antl as per Rule la(d) of SCT Rules, "Candidates provisic,nallv seiected shall be referred to the District Headqrrart':r Hospital lor examination fitness. For any Expert opini,rn, candidates / 7 shall be referred to Osmania/Gandhi Hospitals, Hyderabad, based on of the recommendations made by the District Headquarters Hospitals. Candidates who are declared unht in eye related issues, shall be referred to the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, based on the recommendation made by the District Headquarters Hospital. The candidates can be referred/examined only once on such recommendations 6(iii) The Medical Ofhcer of the District Headquarters Hospital did not recornmend referring the petitioner to either Osmania or Gandhi Hospital for any Expert opinion. The petitioner's contention in para 9 of the Writ petition that other candidates successfully completed their re_ examination, is baseless as there is no provision for re_ medical examination in the Rules. In the Writ petition petitioner has not mentioned any reasons as to why he should be referred for Medical Examination again. 7 Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in 8 W.A.}Jo.1085 of 2023. Accordingly, pra-ved to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. All the petitioners in a batch of \Vrit Petitions mentioned different health grounds for their rnedical unht' FINDINGS OF THIS COURT: g. A perusal of the record shows that all the petitioners were shown me<lically unfit as they have been sufferilrg from various medical issues such as: Dc in + 6 [)ecaved teeth, Disarticulation Right index finger, B/L lower li nb vericovines' Dc in + (i Decaved teeth, B/L mild varicosil ies+, Rt Sided varicovines +, Dc in + 6 Decaved teeth, Mild Hydlocelc+ and Lower linrb vericovines. The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar, forn,arded the representations rf the Medically unht candidates to the Chairman, TSLPRB, Ofiice of the DGP, TS, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No A3/Rect' 4/DPO/MBNRI2024, d.ate 19.O2-2O24 for consideration of their request for Re Medical Examination. 1O. Learned counsel for respondents sut'mits that the question of re medical examination does not zrise as there is no specift,: direction from the Police Authority regarding where the petitioners have to attend the re-medical r:xamination' He 9 relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1O85 of 2023 decided on I4.O2-2O24, and while allowing the said Writ Appeal, the Bench observed as under: q " . - - -atreadg the petitioner uLos referred tr't'to times for medicat examination, tlerefore, the question of referring him a third time for medical exomination does not arise- If such a process is going on, euerybody uill opt for a medicol examination repeatedlA ond it uould becom'e an endless process and it is not proper tttith regard to recruitment' Moreouer, as obserued bg the Hon'bte Apex Court in R'J. Pathan and others (1 supro), it i-s not for the High Courl exercrsing its jurisdtction under Article 226 to consider the peculiar facls and circumstances of the case and grant relieJ. uLhich is not to be treated o-s a precedent' Therefore' the inpugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and it is acardinglg, set aside " In the case on hand, the petitioner is unfit lor the . rcason that he has B/L Lower limb vericovines and he was not referred two times for medica] examination' As such' the above case is not applicable to the present set o[ facts' 1 I . L,earned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that in the above referred judgment, petltloner was already referred two times for medica] exarnination' But' in the case on hand, the petitioners are seeking the re- rrledical exam for the hrst time. 10

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners aJ to relied upon the order of this Court in W.p.No.1gO93 of 2O2O decided on 14.07.2023, wherein at para No.7 this Oourt observed as follows: "7. I{auing regard to the submissiorts ntade ancl irr uieu of_ the peculi.or facts ancl circumstance:; of this case, tlrc Memorandum h Rc.No.2l3 /Rect. / 1-;sn1.2 /2O19, dated O7.O9.2O2O issued bg the Re: pond.ent No.2 is.set aside, insofar it relatei to the 1:et.ition.er herein. 'I'he Respondents are directed to co), rh.tct re_ medicaL examinatiort to the petitioner uith regard to his uisiorr _ond if he is fourul medicallA fit, c;: ider his candidature for prouisiottctl selectioi to the po:t of SCT PC (Ciuil) in Cyberabad/ RR llnit in kecruitment Notificatbn 2018. h is mrrcle clear that this cc.se shall not be treated as precedent, as I haue decided it. purelA on the Jacts and in the peatliar circumstance:, in this case. " In the case on hand, the petitioner is, unht for the reason that he has B/ L Lou,er limb vericorrir es, r,vhereas in the above <:ase, it relates to VISION. As such, tL e above case is not applica.ble to the case on hand.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner:j vehemen:ly submitted that in the case on hand, the Jrctitioners are seeking the re-medical examination for the rirst time and accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ petition;. 11

14. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the pe[troners.

15. Having regard to the submissions made by learned l. counsel for respective parties arrd perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the petitioners are seeking the re- medical examination for the Iirst time. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to make a fresh representation to the Superintendent o[ Police, Mahaboobnagar, for their re medical examination, within a period of four (O4) weeks I I t I from the date o[ receipt o[ a copy of this order. On such representation being made by the petitioners, the { respondcnt authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders for the re-medical exarnination of the petitioners with details of the Hospitals where they are to be re-examined, in accordance with law, within a period six (06) weeks therefrom.

14. With the above direction, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. t2 Contempt cases are hled against the nteim Order-s passed by this Court. In view of disposal of the rnain Writ Petitions, no orders are reguired to be tassed in the Contempt cases. Accordingly, the Conternpt cases are closed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pcnding shall stand closed /ffRUE COPYII D/ - M.RAMA KRISHNA TANT REGISTRAR I \ Secretariat Buildings' To, 1 The PrinciP al Secretary, Home (Legal)DePartme Government of Telang ana Hyderatrad Mahab.rbnagar District Hyderabad, State of Telangana 2. The Din:ctor General of Police' 3. The Superrntendent of Police' Mahabubnagar' 4. The Chairman, Telanga na State Level Police RecruitTent Board' DGP Office 5 The Chairman' Sri. V.V.Srini vasa Rao lPS. The Telattg ana State Level Police 6. One CC to SRI MUNUGA SATEESH' Advocate [OPl"Cl 7. One CC to SRI M.V.RAMA RAO, SC FOR TSLPRB JOPUCI 8. Two OCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for tht: State of Tetangana at Com ple:x, Lakd i ka pool, Hyderabad Recruitment Board DGP Oftice ComPlex, Lakdi ka Pool Hyderabad- Hyderabad [OUTI

9. Two CD Copies BSR TKS j i I i HIGH COURT DATED:08107t202s i I ) .4. rffF ml d I ,) + _* l, :1-1'.;1[\), - --: :;r-jv ,, COMMON ORDER WP.Nos. 6398, 6402 AND 6412 OF 2024 AND C.C.Nos. 1141,1149 AND iii} AF ZA24 DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS & CLOSING ALL THE C.C'S, WITHOUT COSTS ,/1 4z .//l 4 /,