The High Court · 2025

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 interim Orders dated 01-07-2022 in l.A. No. 1 of 2022 in W.P. No. 27590 of 2022 and to dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR SERVICES - | Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI MALIPEDDI SRINIVAS The Court made the following ORDER ,4.t i ldl -:'ael:t HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDP' \r1' IT PE IO N .27 o F2 2 ORDEBi HeardSriSaiPrasenGundavaram;learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners' learned Assistant Governmenl Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondlent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy'learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University'

2. :rhe p iti ner seekinq Pra ra under: s a the Cou rt "....to issue a writ, order or dtrection more prarticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandarrus or erny other a Ppropriate writ: (i) De:lare that the Petitioners are entitlt':d for iJgrlilition as per Section 10 A or Act 19!;4 and ij.o rvr. No. 16, Finance (HRM'I) Department' dated .r-O-Z-Z)16 and Judgment of the Hor''ble Sltpreme i:ourt in Umadevi Vs' State of Karnataka (2016 (4) i;cC il in terms of the proposal sent bv tle^ 2nd and irJ nltpo.Jent dated: 06.08'2019 and 28 0']'2019 'especl ivelY; (ii) De,:lare the letter No. 3749lUE/All2OL7' d'eted 2- 'li zo;2 issued by the I't Respondent as illegal' ;.b.il;-t and beyond the scope of the Writ Petition and consec uentlY set aside the same;" (iii) De clare that the proceedings of the 1't ResS:ondent OateO: 19.11.2019 and consequential proci:edings dated: 27 .02.2020 as illegal, arbitrarl' and consec uentlY set aside the same; ,'."x*rr.,**_ .: -t'a :,..:,:*ll:*:!' r- 2 w.p.ivo.zzsso_;il'j (iv) Direct the ResDoxdents .for regularization / absorption of the services of the petitioners tn the cadre of Asst. professors as per G.O.- M;. t6, Finance (HRM.I) Deoartment, dated 26_2_2016 and Judgment of the Hon,ble Court in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka *," p.po,Ii ;;i il;: !',T:,!' H?t"#,n*X ji (v) pass such order Court may deem fit justice. " or other orders. as and proper in the this Hon'ble interest of ^S^upreme "ru0. 3' Learned counset appearing on beharf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not insisting for the prayer as sought for in so far as regutarization of the petitioners is concerned as per Section 1O(A) of Act, 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.16 Finance (HRM.I) Department dated 26.O2.2O16 and confines the case of the petitioners and also the relief prayed for in the present Writ petition to the extent of consideration of petitioners, accordance to taw as per the proposals sent by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated 06.0g.2019 and 28.O5.2O19 respectively. case in 4 V h e e ts d e e ti bvth e et tto nerst nsuo ort of th ls as under: f e ff av fi e EDresen writpetitton 3 The petitirners are Part time SN.J W.P.No l7590 2022 lecturers in the cadre of Assistant Pro'essors working in the 3'd respondent tJniversity and its consti :uent colleges since the year 199li The petitioners possess the requisite qualifications as per $e UGC r(')gulations for the post ()f Assistant Professors and had been sel::cted and appointed by the Selection Committee as part Time L€'cturers the year 1915 and since then petitioners are conl-inuing in servict:tillasondate.Mostofthepetitionersareabove55 years age ard though they had been working in the !'anctioned posts their cases had not been considered for regu a'ization as on dat e It is further the case of the petitioners that in soite of the specific proposals sent in favour of the petitioners bi' the 2nd & 3'd rt:spond:nts, dated 06'08'2019 and 2B'05'2019 to the respondent No.1 their cases for regularization had not been considered crs on date' Aggrieved by the sarne' petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. PER.USEq J'HE RECORD:

5. The eva nt oortion of the Drop osa ls dated

06.o .201. s No 2tore ntN ts1 extracted hereu n der: :'ti:l6tt t'i:;ii&l*tt**&',:j, 4 w.p No 275e0 2sili " J t', - "lr', 10,,", j[" "ln this connectinn r c,,k-;* .,- . Assistant Professors ,-:t]:l' I. submit that the 72 u n i vL.s i ti i,". ff '#" n, r,,1 !i' T;: T? osmania Universitv for regurarization of their services and atso condtions tairl,dolwn i, c.o.ur.il"liL _,nur.u Dept. 20.6.2016. Frrr[hsr, u, tnl uOoiJ"Cont.u.t Faculty were appointed ;";;:;' ; ;x,ri8l !% J3; ir,#fl ,,i li,r.:,; : 1 ! .ve "; within the purview of U list ir",Ii ";1";''!q ["iiT ::i"",,,iJ,.ir,?,*il; yo.204/20.17. in Wp (pit)-No .L?2/zott. Thus, tiiey have Decome eligible for regularization of tneii s-e"rvices. - n r EV n a r1 h ' f ro o a 6 8 5 I f h o d n n h t o I er U d ra t It is to state thai, .the Assistant professors (contract) who are appointed p.io.-is"sZ"uni seeking regutarization futfifl th." rorio*-ing 1"o#,oyon, for regularization of this services : 1. They possess reouired qualiFication as per the UGC Regulations for apoointn z, " " r" JJo"' I X r?""# ?:*i'i'jili : l" tTi,,",lii," at the time of their initial appointment into the " I n. University service. fu " - l;_rj_.t :1" presenUy, working under Regutar Courses a9a tnst clea r vacancv. nt'" completed 10 vears or university service l; I[;'u They also fulfill the conditions laid down for regularization as Der^ G-.O. Ms. No.16 Fianance Department oated zb.o2.z0ro anJ tne'ir-p"rurn" corrt Judgment in Umadevi, State of r<urnuii-tull"'."

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the Writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for in view of the specific proposals i i t 5 SN,J \\/.P.No..]759(l_2022 borne on record sent in favour of the petitioners by the respondent Nos.2 & 3, dated 06'08'2019 and 28'O5'2019 respectivel)' (referred to and extracted above)

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleiader for Services- placirtg reli,lnce on the judgment of the'Division Bench of this rCourt dated 19.11'2O24 passed in W.P.No.1O744, and W.P.(TR)'No.5972 of Lt643, tglt23 143OO of 2023 2017, contend that the petitioners are not entitled for the reliel' as pr ryed for in the present writ petition '

9. The AP x u in its c t n ertain inq to re ul flz ion of servt ces obse rvedas u nder:- A) The l ud m o heA exC rt n" c 144 d ,..o .20 I 20 reDort NAGAR NI AM GH zl BAD" Dara No .1.5 to 19 are extractedhe re u nd er: ar rcu HRI AL AND A NOTH ER v. r her e leva nt "15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen aonti,,*rtty rendered their services over se"'eral years' iometlmes spanning more than a decade' Evt'rn if certain must lr rolls were not produced in fr:ll' the Employer's iuirri, to ir.nish such records-despite direc:tions to do so-'e llows an adverse inference under well-established iJoillurisprudence. Indian labour law stronilly disfavors oerot:tual daily-wage or contractual engar:lements in Iii.Lritun."s where the work is permanent: in nature' wora ly and legally, workers who fulfi ongoing municipal r."qrii6."ntt vuui after year cannot. be: , dismissed tuiltnitifv as dispensable, particularly in the ilbsence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this junctu re, it would i 6 w.P.N..27seo_rili . case, ,this be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary,, emproymenr practices aJ ;;;.; il a recent rudsement of this court ii r"ss;v."dil; ;)f rndia in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasjve misuse of temporary employment contracts, u, "ru.iririJ in reflects a broader. systemic i.;r; th;; adversely affects workers, .ignL anJ j#,":rhr. rn the private se*or, the iis.e or tne,si; il;;;i, to an increase has ted arran-semenrs, oftgl .n#l'r"JJ;:: ;flrHIfl":: benefits, job securrty, and fair treatment. Such pra*ices have been criticized f"; .;pt;it;;; workers and undermininq taoour siariiuil!.",Eotu".n.nunt institutions, enrrusted.wjtn rpnJrOi.s t#irinciptes 3l^-t:l-::: and justice, b"u. un, urln' g.uu,ur- responsibitity to avoid. such exptoititive- L-mptoyment -entitiJ.-'uigug" f,i:.r]:"r.. When pubtic sector ,, mtsuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimentat rrends obi";;; i; ,i1" g",s,!.onory but also sets a concerning precedent thiican erode public trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconce em p r o ye es, pil;; ;;;' ;lf r:il ItJ, :l? ":?[ffi ::] often- face multifaceted rorris oi urploi u,ionl"*n,r" the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may. have been to uddrur, ,h;;i_;*# l.'r""uronu, "r"l.i"unim needs, they have increasinsrv become'u -eu.a""i".'ol,"r, to ..2024 SCC online sc-ie)6 oblig.ations owed to emptoyeei. i["r" 'pr].ti.", manifest in several ways: . Misuse of .'Temoorary,, Labels: Employees engaged for work that int6eiarlo tne'';il;;,; .?'jiiiill.iiii,:liJ;Ell labelled as "temoorarr,, or "contra.irull;",i,i- *nun their, rote-s mirror thoie or ."griu. ;;;prov-""'r. sr.n -oiqnitv, misctassificatjon deprives workers oi iti" security, and beneFits tfrat .ejuiar "roio'r*! u_ entitled to, despite performrng identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are rrequenUy dismissed wittrout' iause u. -o."n"Jt=i.? t, I t : :l I 7 'W.P.No.2 i 590 SN,J )n)) "rpf seen in the present case This prac:tice un lermines [i: JrinciprLs or natural justice and subjects *,irf.,lit t" u state of constan[ insecurity' rr':gardless qr.f liy or duration of their service n Lack of "i'tn" i:;,;;;r"P;;sression: Temporarv emplovees often ;;;;th".t;ires excluded from opportunities for skill li,t"l"prl.r, promotions, or ' irrcremerttal pay |-e ises.'they remain stagnant in their roles' creating ,r- rG"tn i. disparity between them and their regular .,,-,interparts,'despite their contributiorts being erlually significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions ir creasi"ngly resort to outsourcing roles lrerformed bf temp6rary employees, effectively repl.acing one oited workers with anotier' This practice r lt oJ n.t onf V perpetuates exploitation tlut also O.n']o*trutut a deliberate effort to b)' pass the obligation to offer regular employrrent' . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: - emporary .n-,pfoyu"t are often denied fundament'rl benefits ,rih u. pension, provident fund, health nsurance' ; nd paid leave, even when their tenr'lre spans i"iud"t. This lack of social security subjects them t nd their families to undue hardship' especially in ( ases of illness, retirement, or t'lnforeseen ( ircu msta nces. " did acknowledge the t:mPloyer's 16. --he High Court these abruPt termin ations ' in a bilit y to justifY d re-engagement on drailY wages Conse l uentlY, it ordere of Parity in mininrum PaY' with some measure perpetuated Preca rio u:jness: the Regrel tably, this onlY e left in a marginally in-proved yet Appellant Workmen wer hile the High Court rec<ignized the still urrcertain status. W work and hinted at eventual impor:ance of their regula rization, it failed to afford them continuit','of service or me a n ingful back wages .ornn".nttirate with the degree of statutor'/ violation evident on record ' 17. ln light of these considerations, the Employer's discorrtinuition of the Appellant Workmen stands in violat on of the most basic labour law principle:';' Once it is estab ished that thelr services were terminaled without I 8 w.P.N".27seo_t#i adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.p. Industrial -*"rJ"ensased ?l:?r!:: Act, rs47, ulg th9.r tniy essentiat, perenniat duries, these ;;;k;;, "cannot lgtegate{ to perpetual uncertainty. White concerns of municipaI budget and complian." *ittr'r"."rriii.l"n, rrt", merit consideration. such. .on.u.n, Jo'iit"afrorr" $," Employer of statutorv oOf igations- oi" ";;";' equitabte entitlements. Indeed, .bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the tesitimate rishts or ;";k;"; ;;;'Xuu" ,u.r"o continuously in de fa cio regular roles for an extended period.

18. The impugned order of the High Court. to the extent they contine the Appeltant workm6n t" iri;; daity_wage engagement without conlinujq or meaningfui Oa.t *ages, is hereby set aside with the roitowing-Jire.ii;;;; -A-ti ;.;;; I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen,s services, efFected without compliance witn- section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. rnaurtirai"oiJor,", Act, 1947, is dectared ittegat. communications terminating their r..ria"a- u." -wJitrn"n q,uashed. In consequence, the nppettanl shall be treated as continuing in'r"iui." i.J_ tn" date of their termination, for 5rt prrpor"i i..f rOing seniority and continuity in service. IL The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to ,duties they previousty je.formeoi *itiin''ror. weeks from the date of this judgm"nil fn"i.'untir" oe1j9d or absence (from the oite o] iu#iriut,on until actual reinstatement) shall O. .trnt"J fo, continuity of service and. ail .onr"q runtiu i O"n"fitr, such as seniority and etigibility foi prornoii"ni, ir any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shail be entifled to 50yo Lr irlJ ou.t wages from the date of their Oiscontinuaiion untit their actual reinstatement. The nliponOent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstat"runt - t l ; i I I I i I I I i I 9 SN,J rV. P.No.l"590--2022 IV The Respondent Employer is directed t') .initiate a' iair. inO transparent process for regular zjng the itr",f *, *"ir<nien within six montl.ts from the date ,,i i"inttu,"-ent, duly considering the fact hat they f,ru" p"rforrned perennial municipal dutie:';. akin to n€ rmanent posts. 1n assessing regulariza:ion'- the Ei,..,JiJr"-, tn'ri"not i,pot" educa;lonal or procedural ,,r t[iiJ retroactively if such requiremettts were ;,,;;;-uppii.o to itre Appellant w9tlTj'1^:' to To ,t,"l.rrv'iir",ed regular bmployees 'l -tl:^lu:t that sanciioned vacancies for sr-rch duties " "*t6nt ;,<isi";; ;; required, the Respondent Emplover ".*puOite all necessary adm nistrative ti,.fi these longtime emplrryees are p:J."..*'to ri-ino"rinlt"ly retained on daily \^/ages c(lntrary to s'.atutorY and equitable norms' "nrwu -n by the :19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) .filed ,roif.".r,n are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) fil3d by the ilagar tliqam Ghaziabad are dismissed'" B) 'Ihe ju reported in 1 2.20 24, 2024 Law Suit(sc) 1209 inJ aqqo Anitaa nd India and others, a dt e relevant 26, 27 and2I are 13Xtracted others v. -! Dara cl ra Dh Nos. 1 2, 13, 24, hereunder: Despite being labelled as-"pa{'t- '12 tim: workersr" the appellants pertormeo these essential tasks on a dally ano iontlnuort basis over extensive periods' ranging from over a decade to nearly two aeciaJs. Their engagement w9s. noJ spcradic or temporary in nature'.inllt:l-oj it vvas recurrent, regular, and akin to the res po n sibilities typically associated wltn sarictioned Posts. Moreover' the ieiponoents did not engage any otlrer pli!"nner for these tasks during the appellants tenure' underscoring the ind ispensable nature of their work' t' i'+}l.lr*nal j

13. Th l0 SN..I w.P.No.27590 2022 h o re ul r a d n st c r h n t t d h h o c o n a n al e W r a f t ef offices. The recurri ng nature of these duties necessitates their classification as posts, irrespecti regular ow their in itial engagements were labell ed. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants, term in ation demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further unde rscores that the work rn question was n e ither temporary nor occa sional.

24. The landmark jud gement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corpora tion [97 F.3d 1 187 (9rh Cir. 1996 )l serves as a peftinent exa mple from the priva te sector, illustrating the consequences of m iscla ssifying emplo yees to circumvent providin g benefits. In this case Microsoft classified certain workers as ind epen dent contractors thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determi ned that these workers were in fact common- law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regu la r employees. The Court noted that large Corporations nave i ncreasingly a dopted the practice of hi,lng temporary em ployees or independent co ntra ctors as a means of avoidi n9 payment of employee benefits, there by rncreasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed rather than the Iabel assigned to the worker should determine employment status and the corres ponding rights and benefits. f d la st ti h o h e s a a or e v f, r SN,J rV.P.No 2"590-2022 -curtalt

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supral [he practice "f ,P::19":] iJrsn. to entr]e; and ensure appointments adl'ered t( Io".,i,rtio"ul principles, it is regrettable that itt; ".i".i ,'"t are often misinterpreted o "-i=..rri"O to deny legitimate claims of lonlr servir'q employees. This judgmelt ..?lmeo 'beiween "illegal" and "irregular' a:=tln iuitn appoi ltments. tl,] l'l I I req u Howt Gove vest( sel e h d t'l r la z ver, the laudable inte nt of the judgment s titutions relY on i1 s subverted when ins ect the 616165 of to in d iscrim in ate lY rel cases whe'e their cyees, even ln illeg al, but merelY la<. k intments are not rence to formalitier;. Proced te tle rnment departments often ':i nent in Uma Devi (suPra) to argue that ro ht to reg u la rization exlsts f l>r :ci rig )orary emPloYees, ment's exPlicit ackn owledgment of casr:s -e reg u la rization is aP propriate. Th is h overlooking r r ![e3 dec ades. In light of these considerations' in ctur 27. ooirion, it is imperative for governm('nt i[olitm"nts to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment' Engaging woFKt:lrs on u t"rnporary basis for extended periolls' eso:ciallv when their roles are integral to 1:he oro lnization's functioning, not only contraverres inttrnational labour standards but also expo:';es ln. organization to legal challenges :'!9 untlermines employee morale' By ensurlng iai, emptoyment practices, gover-nment institutions can reduce the burden of I I2 w P.No.27se0 t#i unDecessary litigation, promote iob ,piirlipj"" r"o? .-1-"_T1,,v, plq uphotd ir,. lus]rcg and fairness that they are iil"i"t t"J 3:."ili_".r'':t;:r:*l-: j.I,J;_[,,J: l{:f _,:" l. Iff ,,.T,11#".i; ";iii r :?,:iI; b_etterment of labour practices in the cou ntry. 28. In view of thq 6[9ys discussion and I:11:_n-.t , ,ng appeats are alowed. The l1prgl:d orders passed OV il u HiSh'Corrt .th"--;;r:l tne,.Tribunal are set aside and ""J appticarion is alowed to the foilowin;';#;i:"", The termination z /.7O.20L8 are quashed; orders dated I n eta e h ll. d lari ed o r o tss all n tb V n fl d Dec niarv benefitsl ba ck waqes for ri d the h ve n t or for b t een ti e t ut ervi e f da d w u t steeba rfodtenuoc f s m v e h o td r e b rtertsoreh c)Th Aoe x o urti n the udo me ntin" Vin od Ku mar and fn dia an d others reDo edin 2O249 o1 2 Uni on of d t Vs c 2 s I o a e a ce o u il t e r a t u u s n tv r h s h t n o d r e a n t les and their c ontin us se e u d v r s a d o ti u u t V n u e h tr rVtce akin to Derma e t f e Dlovee n r fa irne sal e SN,J \\/.P.No.2 7590 2022 f e b m lo e reou larizatio n. the s id d e a ar N .9, it had been observ eda sun d er: - !). Accr)rdingly, the appeals are allowed The jurlgment of ih"'Hi;.l co,it['it set aside, and the appella.nts are entitled io O"- considered for regularization in their -espective ir.f.. .n" respondents 1re directed to com plete the i;;;;;t, of regularization within 3 months from tne date of r;ervice of th is judgment. -'l'he a apprga!-bcg t eC u in its en b r lla s nt ea bove r ferred caseha d ha the Hi hc urt erred re o n ze es bst a ntive aliqn with re duties, which t th rth nt t m rar . scheme- a o nted for Th nature of r t s dis rss dth a Tribu n th ee ncll4lj]lg that thei r a DDoi ntments were te m p9.ra-fy-A-0ll them to for as cific sc me ions of he ntit n !ic t la rizat: ron r ti nl rmanen ost a nd the alpeJlalltg Court uPh have aporoached th eHiqh Court a ncl the Hiqh n I and .dismissed T h s h ADD ellants' emDlovme nt under tem oorarv scheme could hos held b her ht a f erm n n I , i I 1 I t I I e c o n e r din 20 6v t o 14 . SN..I W.P.No.275g0 2OZ2 fth A h u n K r ata ka V m c 1 t h h VE e r a u mental rtq h be abso rbed into servtc DI U sIO N o c U I I h T isC urt e t a th le rne c u e rl r s ond n s o o a e n r e n e a sof t e e t a e

11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 submits that in so far as the prayer pertaining to the regularization of the petitioners is concerned, it is onty the respondent Nos.l and 2 who are the competent Authorities concerned to take a decision on the subject issue in accordance to law. 12. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions put_forth by both the learned counsel on record, taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court in its recent judgments (referred to and extracted above) pertaining to regutarization referred to and discussed above and again enlisted hereunder:_ l' I I 15 sN'J \ri P No 2l'590-2022 i) Vinoc Kumar and others Vs' Union of India and others" rePorted in 2024 9 SCC 327 ' ii) Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others" reported in 2024 ScC online SC 3826 iii)ShriJral and another Vs' Nagar Nigam' Ghaziabad" reported in 2O25 SCC Online SC 22L The wl'it petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the request of the petitioners for regularization in accordance to law in conformity with the principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, duly taking into consideration the view of the Apex rSourt in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) in t':rms of the proposals sent by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated 06'08'2019 and 28 05'2019 resper:tively (referred to and extracted above) which clearl'/ indicate that petitioners adm'ttedly had been appointed trrrior to 1996, and they possess the required qualificatiolls as per the UGC Regulations for appointment as Assistant Professors and further that they faced college level Selection Committee at the time of their ilritial appointment prior to 1996 and are presently lvorking under regular courses against clear I , l To SA KV I6 SN..I W .p .No.Z7 5sO-2022 vacancy and had been in contin uous service from the date of their initial appointment ti, as on date and pass appropriate orders within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duty communicate the decision on the.subject issue to the petitioners herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous ciosed. applications, if any, pending shall stand SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEGTION OFFICER 1 2 The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Secretariat, State of Telangana ai Hyderabad. .t.he Secretary, Telangana State Council for High Hyderabad. 3. The Re_gistrar, Osmania University, Hyderabad. 4. Two ccs to Gp FoR sERVrcEs 5. One cc to sRt sAt pRAsEN Gvryg4-vARAt\4, Advocate [opucl 9. 9ne CC to SRt tuALtpEDDt SR|N|VAS, nOvodate ioeuC) 7. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUTI --i, E) Department, Telangana Education, Telangana, riish court tor tre state of rerangana at f HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ORDER WP.No.27590 of 2022 DISPOSING C,F THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. C.C. TODAY : -" --. i iAI E + 1\ i4 J ,\ I 4 L o \i:\. 1 '\... i /r' 0 l