P.Venkatesh v. 1. The State of Telangana

Order

Petitioner's case is that uide ord€r of the 3.d Respondent d,ated 13.O2.2OO8, he was appointed as Village Servant, a post which was later re-designated as Village Revenue Assistant, for Anjapur village, along with three others who were posted to different villages on a temporary basis for six months and he has been continuously working since then. His appointrnent, he submits, is in accordance with Rule 6 of the A.P. Village Servants Service Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.1849, Revenue (V O.) Department, dated

28.1O.2OO5, and t}erefore valid. Despite this, salaries attached to the post were not paid from the date of appointment.

1. 1. Petitioner points out that his appointment was specilically made due to exigency of administration, and while work was taken from him, he was denied the sa1ary for the post of Village Revenue Assistant. Due to continuous denial of salaries, he approached the A.P. Adrninistrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2446 of 2Ol3 seeking payment of salaries along with arrears from 13.O2.2OO8 and for regularization of his services, as by tJren he had worked more than ni.r. years. The Tribunal, I I 'i t 'I t. I 2 q by interim order dated 26.O4.2OL3, directed payme r with arrears wittrin four weeks. The said O.A. disposed on 23.06.2016, making the interim ordr: and further directing that petitioner be paid accordance with the Rules for the period he had that his case for regular appointment as Villzq Assistant be considered within three months frorr I of salaries was Iinally s absolute, salaries in vorked and e Revenue the date of receipt of the order.

1.2. After expiry of three months, petitionr:r submitted representations dated 1O.O8.2O17 and 24.O9.2O1', payment of salaries from 13.02.2008 and rep requesting rlarization. However, no paJment was made. Since the State o Telangana has no Administrative Tribunal after bifurcation, ( overnment employees had to approach this Court. petitioner therefore, being unable to hle contempt before the Tribunal fiIed Writ Petition No. 37957 of 2016 seeking implementa t on of the Tribunal's orders. Interim directions were issued on

4.7't.2076 to pay salaries and to call for explanation from the ! overnment Pleader (Services), Telangana as to why Tribunal,s c rders were not implemented. When the matter was posted for I :aring, the Government Pleader produced Memo dated 3l.Ol.il, r17 issued by the 4ttt Respondent rejecting the claim of petition,: for salary i , i -i: ,rl 3 and regularization. The rejection Memo stated that. Petitioner, along with three otlrers, were appointed as Village Servants on

13.O2.2OO9 (not 2OO8) under A.P. Village Servants Service Rules (G.O.Ms.No.1849 dated 28.10.2005 read with G.O.Ms.No. 13446 lV.l.1 I 2OO4-2 dated' 08.03.2006). Based on this Memo, W.P.No.37957 of 2016 was closed, giving liberty to Petilioner to challenge the Memo dated 31.O1.2O17. The present writ petition is frled irnpugning the said Memo.

1.3. The Memo further stated that File No. A1914312006 through which appointment was made could not be traced. It was also mentioned that the post allotted to Petitioner was filled in 2ol2 by smt' R' Bhagrala Laxmi through APPSC, and that similar claims of two other appointees, Sri K. Muralidhar Prasad and Sri K. Babu Rao, were rejected by the Tribunal in O.A.No.5E93 of 2O13 dated 14.O9.2O16, hence salary cannot be paid to the Petitioner as well. Petitioner states that reliance on O.A.No.5893 of 2013 is wholly misplaced. That O.A. was dismissed because Sri Muralidhar Prasad and Sri Babu Rao could not establish that they had worked and continued in servi:e. In contrast, in O.A-No.2446 of 2O13, Petitioner had conclusively established his appointment and continuance, l,eading to directions by the Tribunal to pay salary I t ,{ t t I 4 and consider regularization. Equating his ,: Lse with the dismissed O.A.No.5893 of 2O13 is arbitrary and il :gal. Issuance of the Memo dated 31.O1.2017 is, therefore, in r efiance of the Tribunal's binding order and amounts to conteml) . | .4. Petitioner further states that the l) I Respondent himself had addressed letter dated 19.l2.rl I5 and the Government Pleader for Revenue, Telangan,r before the Tribunal on 05.O2.2O16 confrrmed that Petition: was entitled to salary based on certificates issued by Tah; ldars for the period 13.O2.2OO8 to 31.05.2014. These facts w< re considered by the Tribunal while passing frnal orders. At no roint between 2Ol3 and 2016 did the Respondents ev(:l state that appointment file was untraceable. Only after dirt :tions of this Court, the stand of "file not traced" and "post fill: I up in 2012" was conveniently taken to deny payment.

1.5. Petitioner refutes the claim that the F )st was filled in 2012 by Smt. R. Bharya Laxmi. If that were ,he case, the same should have been brought to notice of the Tr bunal during pendency of O.A.No.2446 of 2013, but it was not nstead, even rn 2O15, letters were addressed regarding paynl )nt of salary under Tribunal's in terim orders. F\rrther, Govenr nent pleerder \ \ I I I I 5 for Revenue gave a categorical opinion on 05.02.2016 that Petitioner was entitled to salaries. Hence, tlre contention that the post was filled up is incorrect ald a deliberate attempt to defeat Tribunal's order.

1.6. Petitiorrer highlights that his clairn was rejected on the ground that his name was not in the pay-bill register. He states that this is a false contention, because his claim itself is based on non-paJrment of salary despite continuous working. Certihcates issued by Tahsildars establish his service. Therefore, denial tJlat he worked in Anajpur village is talse, mischievous and misledding. As regards the contention that File No.A/9 14 3l2Ctr6 is not traceable and that the inward register of 20O6 shows entr5r at S1.No.9143 only for one Sri A. Krishna, Petitioner states that this is incorrect. The same proceeding number A/914312006 was used in subsequent years 2OOZ and 2OO8 to iSsue appointments on compassionate grounds to persons like Sri Ponna-la Ganapathi, Rasala Narsimha Yadav, and Morra Shankaraiah. Thus, denying the proceeding number and misrepresenting facts in the Memo is a calculated move to de$ Tribunal's order. I I t { 6

1.7. Petitioner hnally states that from evr ry angle, the Memo dated 3l.Ol.2Ol7 rejecting his claim is ille6lr I arrd ,rorr."t in law. Certificates issued by the 3d Re spondent': oflice clearly prove that Petitioner has been working. The < rders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2446 of 2Ol3 directing pa5rme :tt of salaries and consideration for regularization have atti ned finality. Respondents, instead of implementing the same, : ssued a false ald misleading Memo. Therefore, Petitioner pray r that Memo dated 3 l.O 1 .2O 17 be set aside and direcLions I e issued for pa5rment of salary trorn 13.O2.2OO8 with arre rrs, and for consideration of his regularization as Village Reven re Assistant.

2. Petitioner through I.A.No. I of 2023 li ed additional alhdavit placing on record additional material 1,: pers, stating a-lmost on similar lines as in the writ alfrdavit.

3. In the counter liled by the 4fr Resp rndent, it is admitted that petitioner and three others w,: e appointed emergently on 13.O2.2OO8 as temporar5r stop-gal incumbents for six months to the posts at Anjapur, L,ashkegu,i r, Omarkhan Daira and Bandaraviyala Villages because substanlial Govnemment lands in those villages were .r \ rlnerable to encrdachments and the then existing Village li )rvants were w t I I 7 elderly and unable to effectively safeguard Government property. The order dated 13.02.2@8 expressly stated that these appointments were purely temporary and liable to termination on expiry of the stipulated six-month period without I notice; accordingly, after the six months, no continuation orders were issued and initial orders ceased to exist. It is stated that petitioner himself admitted his appointment was only for six months.

3.1. The 4fr Respondent relies on Rules 6(2) and 6(3) to submit that the total period of temporar5r appointrnent cannot exceed two years without Commissioner's approval. There are no records of any continuation orders after the initial six-month appointment dated 13.02.20O8 and there is no approval by the I Commissioner or Government to continue ttle temporary appointment; therefore, any alleged continuance beyond the six months is uoid ob initio and non est in law. It is contended that there is no record showing that petitioner worked after expiry of the initial six months. The certifrcate dated 26.O5.2014 purporting to show that petitioner worked from 13.O2.2OO8 to

31.05.2014 is, the 40, Respondent says, legally ineffectrve because it was issued for the purpose of claiming salary and no statutory salary bill procedure was ever followed for petitiorer. \ \ 8 o On perusal of pay-bill register, petitioner,s name is.absent from pay rolls from 73.O2.2OOS onwards; on that g :ound, the 46 Respondent denies entitlement to salary.

3.2. The 4ttr Respondent further notes tha . pelitioner did not produce any document showing that he wzLr appointed as Village Revenue Assistant as distinct from Villag : Servalt and reiterates that the Village Servant post was lilled t rrough AppSC in 2072. On that basis, the 4trr Respondr:: rt maintains, petitioner's contention that he worked in tt e post until 31.05.2014 is false. It is also stated, the Governrr ent abolished Village Servant/Village Revenue Assistant posts, i nd therefore, the notion that petitioner continues in the post is r ntrue.

3.3. The 4rh Respondent recounts that p titioner frled O.A.No. 2446 of 2Ol3 belore rhe A.p. Administra:ive Tribunal seeking release of salary from date of initial apF( intment and consideration for regularization; Tribunal dispose,J of that O.A. directing respondents to release and pay salarir: ,, if any, in accordance with rules and to consider the reques for regular appointment in :rccordance u,ith Rules. It is e;l rlained that because petitioner,s appointment is contrary to Rult 6(3) and as the Village servanr post was filted by an AppSC < andidate in \ \ i I I I I I l I t. I 9 2012, tlis request was rejected uide Memo dated 3l '01 '20 17' Then, petitioner filed Writ Petition No' 37957 of bOrO for implementation of the Tribunal's order dated 23'06'2O16' but when the Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandd produced Memo dated 3I.01.2017 rejecting petitioner's claim for salary and regularization, this Court declined to Pass further orders and dismissed the Writ Petition ott Ol'O2'2O17 ' The 46 Respondent explains the substance of the

3.4. impugned Memo which stated that petitioner was appointed on 13.O2.2OO8 on a temporary emergent basis for six months; post was filled during 2012 through regular recmitment by the A'P' Pubtic Service Commission and that Smt' R' Bharyala:mri was appointed as Vitlage Servant of Anjapur village in the petitioner's place and is receiving salary; petitioner produced working period certificates but his name does not appear in the pay bill register and there is no other evidence in offrce records to show he worked in Anjapur village' On these ' the 4tr' Respondent contends, petitioner's request was rejected' [n relation to the cases of the three ot]rer temporary 3.5. appointees who joined on 13.O2'2OO8, the 4tl Respondent states shnd on the same footing as tJlat of Petitioner; theY were 1 { t i I I I I t l0 temporary six-month appointees and no conti 1 ra,fion orders exist. Two of those persons, Sri K. Muralidhar Prrr ;ad and Sri K. Babu Rao, frled O.A.No. 5893 of 2Ol3 before the I ibunal which disposed of that O.A. on 14.09.2016 directing I rem to mal<e representations to respondents who shall pa;; appropriate orders, and their requests were ultimately reje:ted. The 4e Respondent insists that petitioner's case was assc sed on record and rule position and not merely on the orders ir O.A.No.5893 of 2013.

3.6. The 4th Respondent emphaticrr [y disputes petitioner's contention that he had conclusivel' established continuance of service before the Tribun: and that O.A.No.5893 of 2013 is irrelevant; instead the 4t Respondent maintains parity between petitioner and the . pplicants in O.A.No.5893 of 2013 and asserts there is no v riance in the factual matrix and reiterates that the petitioner r*,ir , a six-month temporary appointee who was not continl ( d. The 4trr Respondent notes the impugned Memo refi rred to in O.A.No.5893 of 2Ol3 but clarifies rhat the Mem: did not rely solely on that OA for rejecting the petitioner's clairr \ l u

3.7. The 4ft Respondent addresses petitioner's allegation that records were misplaced by acknowledging thai creation of new mandals, formation of new districts and stalf transfers resulted in hle misplacement; after things became clear, files were traced. It is reiterated, no record exists to show that petitioner worked as Village Servant after the initial six monttrs and therefore, he is not entitled to reliefs. Finally, the 4ft Respondent submits that since 2OL2, there has been no vacant Village Assistant/Village Revenue Assistant post in the mandal, Government abolished such posts and that afbwing petitiorrer to claim continuity / reg arizaLron would arnount to backdoor entry into Government service bypassing merit-based selection and competitive process, there by infringing the rights of candidates who participated in regular recruitment and causing loss to the public exchequer. The 4tn Respondent maintains the impugned Memo and rejection of the petitioner's claim are founded on record, statutory rule position and the post- recruitment position created by APPSC selectirons, and prays that the Court may dismiss petitioner's claims.

4. Petitioner files the reply afhdavit responding to the counter afhdavit of the 4d' respondent and reiterates the factual matrix while addressing each contention advanced therein. t \ t t2 Petitioner reminds that Hayathnagar Mandal of District coirprises villages including : ianga Reddy uthbullapur, Kawadipally, Bacharam and Anajpur and that Vi lage Servant posts in these villages have been vacant for marr., years; owing I to heavy workload and with higher authority pcr mission, the then Deputy Collector & Tahsildar issued proc,: 'dings dated

25.O4 .2OO7 and thereafter File No. A I 9143 I 2006 dated 2O.O1.2OO8 calling for Applications for appointmer I to the post of Village Servant for Anajpur by inviting eligible < andidates to apply within fifteen days, in response to wh < h petitioner applied and was appointed by proceedings datec t3.o2.200a and joined duty as a Village Servant (post tater lescribed as Village Revenue Assistant) in the , vacancy thir existed in Anajpur.

4.1. Petitioner accepts that apporntment :rder dated

13.O2.2O08 described the appointment as rempor: j y bur points out that notification dated 2l.Ol.2OO8 calling for. applications did not specify the six-month limitation; appoi I .ment order alone recorded ttre six-month temporary tenure i r d petitioner highlights the absence of any subsequent notic( or direction terminating his appointment upon expiry of six mon ths. He therefore, disputes the 4e respondent,s contenti )n that the t I l3 initial order "ceased to exist' automatically after six months, submitting that no formal termination order *"" him and that silence and inaction by respondents cannot be issued to "t"t 1 i construed as an effecLive termination.

5. Responding to the 4th respondent's reliance on Rule 6 of the A.P. Village Servants Service Rules, petitioner concedes t1lat Rule 6 governs temporary appointments but submits that even if Rule 6 applied, the 4th respondent ought to have taken concrete administrative steps - specihcally, issuance of termination / exten sion orders or seeking Commissioner's approval for continuance beyond two years - before asserting tlrat any continuance was uoid ab initio Petitioner asserts that' historically, the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar issued noLification and appointment pursuant to directions from higher authorities and that no challenge to the legality of appointrnent on the ground of absence of Commissioner/ Government approval was advanced by responden[s bcfore the Tribunal when his O'A' was considered and disposed in his favour on 23 06'2016' Petitioner addresses the 4s respondent's objection 5.1. to tlre service certifrcate d'ated 26'05'2014 by asserting t}lat the 4frrespondenthasnoauthoritytodeclarethatcgrtifrcate t4 o I invalid unless such certificate is cancelled t superior. He also explains that the pay-bill pro,: by the 4tt' respondent; preparation of salary bill; salction and payment applies to regular emJrl temporary appointees paid honorarium may regular pay-roll registers; accordingly, the abser from the pay-bill register is not a conclusive r ,/ 3 competent dure described PAO/Treasury ryees, whereas lot appear on :e of his name egative on his entitlement to honorarium/ salary for the perio,l he served. He stresses that the 4th respondent,s argument co r permanent pay-roll inclusion with the separrr procedure for temporary Village Revenue Assista r lates rules for e honorarium S.

5.2. aim thal the tioncr cannot ;t u,as filled aJ;orntment, he Addressing the 4ur respondent,s ,l Village Serva_nt/Village Revenue Assistant pi through APPSC in 2Ol2 arrd that therefore, Jrt r claim sa-lary for any period beyond that disputes that assertion: he notes that if At PSC-recruited candidate was truly appointed in his place, te, .rinating him, there ought to have been express termination/ r,. icving or<lers, but no such orders were produced. He reiterates hat his claim is premised on non-paJfinent of honorarium desP te his having discharged duties and that the Tribunal in O.A.No 2446 ol 2Ol3 qp 23.06.2016 directed release of salaries, if an_r,, r accordance C[t/ t5 with mles and directed consideration of his regularization within three months - an order which attainea nnatty and has not been challenged by respondents.

5.3. Petitioner contests the 4ft respondent's reliance on parity with the applicants in O.A.No.5893 of 2013 {Sri K. Muralidhar Prasad and Sri K. Babu Rao) and reiterates that O.A.No.2446 of 2013 (his case) is a separate proceeding which resulted in a different, favourable order on 23.06.2016; he points out that the impugned Memo dated 3l.Ol.2ol7 purported to apply the order in O.A.No.5893 of 2013 to him even though he was not a party to that O.A., and he emphasizes that the 4e respondent's present plea that O.A.No.5893 was merely referred to and not relied upon contradicts the express language of the impugned Memo which applied O.A.No.5893 of 2013 to his case.

5.4. Petitioner responds to the 4th respondent's contention about file misplacement by asserting that misplacing records is the responsibility of respondents and that they cannot beneftt from their own lapse; hc relies on the Latin maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De InTtria Sua / Juri Ex Injuria non Oritur to support the proposition that the 46 t 1 .t n I I I t6 respondent cannot take advantage of its own i, rongful act of misplacing or failing to produce records. He poir ts to the later RTI disclosures demonstrating that File No. A/t) .43/2006 ar-.d File No. A/2O3O /2013 were in fact traceable rnd available, thereby discrediting the earlier claim of non-avai)z bility.

5.5. Petitioner examines the 4d, respor( ent's reliance upon Rule 6 limits and the absence of Commiss < ner's approval for continuance beyond two years and reiterater; that Tribunal, after considering the documentar5r record (in l uding service certificates and the Deputy Collector & Tahs I lar's letter of

19.l2.20l5l made the interim direction absolute n 23.06.2016 and directed respondents to release salarJr ar-rea r i and consider regularization; having allowed that Tribunal orr er to become f-rnal without challenge, respondents cannot, in : yuily and lau,, decline implementation by novel relia-nce c e procedural technicalities that were not advanced before tL e Tribunal or contradicted the material placed before it.

5.6. Petitioner also stresses that the 4r contention that the Government has abr,l respondent's shed Viltage Servant/Village Revenue Assistant posts and th€ t allowing his claim would permit backdoor entry into service by rassing merit O.\,/ t7 based selection is not a valid answer to his entitlement to arrears for work actually performed; he reiterates tl.at his claim is limited to paJrment for services rendered (i'e', honorarium/ salary) from l3lO2/2OO8 and implementation of the Tribunal's direction to consider regularization in accordalce with rules and eligibility, and that permitting his legally- adjudicated claim would not prejudice merit-based selection for fresh vacancies. Petitioner points out procedural anomalies in the 5.7. 4th respondent's approach: the Tahsildar produced the impugned Memo dated 31.O1.2O17 in Writ Petition No' 37957 of 2016 and' this Court directed him to challenge that Memo separately; petitioner did so, and also hightights that the 4e respondent has not liled counter-afhdavit in the present writ despite extended time and that the impugned Memo contains internally inconsistent and contradictory contentions which together demonstrate that the Memo was tentative' tegally- unsound and issued without due application of mind' Petitioner ' reiterates that two other persons 5.8. appointed along with him pursued s€parate proceedings and their factual and procedural posture is not identical to his; in t/ t d t t t I I t t I ) j I I I I i l L 1 I l8 particular he asserts that his O.A.No.2446 of 2 013 attracted specific and favourable directions which matured oto finality on

23.06.2016 and therefore, respondents are bounc to implement those directions; where other petitioners dil not pursue representations as directed under O.A.No.589:i of 2013, the consequences cannot be equated to his case. Pe itioner states that the impugned Memo dated 31.01.201 Z is illegal, unsustainable and contrar5r to the records as lat rr revealed by RTI disclosures; he reiterates that the 4ft respo; Ldent's failure to challenge the Tribunal's order or implement [, reliarce on misplaced-hle pleas, assertions about pay-roll r mission, and contradictions about APPSC appointments are not valid grounds to deny relief and, in the petitioner's submissic 1, amount to improper administrative conduct which the Co: t should not permit to defear a final adjudicatory order.

6. Heard Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, leanr :d counsel for petitioner and Ms. B. Annapurna, leanr, d Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I. 7 - In the impugned memo, it was spec ifically stated that petitioner was appointed on temporar5r basis or a period of six months and appointees are liable for \\t termination I 19 immediately on expiry of stipulated period without issuing any notice. Respondent's clear case is that petitioner aiong with three others were appointed on emergent basis by the very same proceedings for six months and as the sarne is contrary to Rule 6(3), their case was also rejected' Rule 6(3) says that continuance of temporar5r inctrmbent beyond two years shall be only with the approval of the Commissioner' After initial order' there was no continuation order issued and there was no approval issued by the Commissioner or Government' hence' the alleged continuation of petitioner is uoid ob initio ar.d non' est in the eye of law. Subsequently, petitioner approached the Tribunal by frling O.A.No.2446 of 2013, wherein it was directed by order dated 26.04.2013 to release and pay the salary due to the applicant together with arrears, if any, within four weeks in accordance with rules, if the applicant had worked during the relevant period. The Tribunal's final order dated 23 O6 2O16 made the interirn order absolute and directed release and payment of salary, if any, in accordance with Rules' and directed that the request for regular appointment Lre considered in accordance wittr rules and eligibility' and that necessary orders be passed within three months from the date of receipt o[ of tlre order. The Tribunal directed consideralion of \ a c9pY t 1 t 20 regularization 'in accordance with rules and as rcr eligibility', and fixed a timeline for administrative decisior -making. The Tribunal's directions did not, on the face of the c rder, frrnction as a directive to ignore or dispense with tt e condiLions, procedures and limitations recogrrised by Rule 5 of the A.P. Village Servants Service Rules or other statutory requirements that govern temporary appointments, cont regularization.

8. The 4u Respondent's undisputed cas : is that since the appointment is contrary to Rule 6(3) and the 'illage servant post was lilled up by a APPSC candidate na nely Smt. R. Bhagralakshmi in 2012, petitioner's request wa.t rcjected uide order dated 31 .O1.2017. According to him, thert: is no vacancy in Anjapur Village to accommodate petitioner al I to claim his salary for the post which is already filled rr r. Petitioner produced working period certihcate issued by che Tahsildar concerned with effect from l3.O2.2OOa b 31.O1; 2O14, but on perusal of pay bill register, his name is not inclu'j )d in pay rolls ftom 13.02.2008 till date and there is no c her evidence available in the office to show th at he worked in lt rjapur hence, his request was rejected. t t. t. I l I I I I I I I I 2t g. tt is also to be noted, when petitioner frled Writ Petition No. 327957 of 2016 for implementation ol the order d.ated 23.062O16 of the Tribunal, in view of the memo dated

31.01.2017 issued by the Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal rejecting petitioner's request for payment of salaries as well as appointing him on regular basis, this Court declined to pass aly order and dismissed the Writ Petition on Ol.O2.2Ol7. Further, it is to be seen, the two other persons namely K. Muralidhar Prasad and K. Babu Rao also frled O.A.No. 5893 of 2013 before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal directed them to make representation to respondents who were directed to pass appropriate orders and their request was also rejected' In the memo impugned, orders passed in O.A.No.5893 of 2013 filed by the above two individual was referred to but not relied on for rejecting petitioner's case.

10. ln the counter, the 4e respondent also taken a plea tliqt since 2012, there is no Village Assistant / Village Revenuc Assistant post vacant and further, tJre government had abotished the said post; petitioner is trying to enter the government service by way of backdoor appointment bypassing fair competition and rrrerit-based selection which infringes thc t t t I I 22 r-) fundamental rights of candidates appearing lt competitive process. I 1. ln the light of the above discussion, t: s Court does not find Erny reason to entertain the Writ Petition, hence, of the opinion that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed

12. costs.

13. The Writ Petition is accordingly, ,i smissed. No Consequently, Miscellaneous Applica ions, if any shall stand close.l SD/ M. JAWAHAR REDDY A:i;ISTANT REGISTRAR ',-';L-/ SECNON OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. One CC to SRI K. MURALIDHAR REDDY, Advocate t' )PUCI 2. Two CCs to GP tor Services-|, High Court for the State of Telangana it Hyderabad. [OUTI 3. Two CD Copies "/ , \ \ I I t To MP BS HIGH COURT DAI ED:2410912025 o o ( * ( Fiif .r *.c 0 5 0 ?2 6 * -n s B.\T REDRo WP.NI,.15015 of 2017 DISMISSING THE !I'RIT PETITION W THOUT COSTS @r") @ w \ or= 2.oJt