The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No.26354 oF 2024 ORDER , (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. V.Subba Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the relief: "...it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ or directaon preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the present writ petition is being filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings vide ROC No.1811/2022-RC dated 16,05.2024 in pursuant to the same, the respondent No.5 in issuing the proceedings vide Dis.No.1315/20241A1 daled 01.06.2024 by terminating the petitioner from his services without following due process of law and without giving opportunity, as ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Rule 14 of the Telangana Judiciat Ministerial and 8ubordinate Services Rules, 201g and 19(2) read with Rule 20 of the Tetangana Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 199.1 and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of lndia and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequentially direct the respondent Nos.3 & 5 to reinstate the petitioner in the services as Office Subo!.dinate to continue to discharge his duties at office of Principle District Judge, Suryapet, by paying salary wages as attached to the post and pass such + 2 other o or'*:rs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the c rc.tnrs t lnces of the case.

3. In tf,e ti11 r, of the order passed by this Bench on t8 0l'2025 in W.P.No.3ti4 l(t of 2024, being dismissed vide separatt: orrler' the present wl it p,: ition is dismissed in terms of the ordel parrsed in W.P.No.3ti4.l('. f 2024. There shall be no order as to costs' Consequ,:ntly, miscellaneous petitions pending' if any shall stand closr:d //TRUE COPY// 'R';tiSflNrlA:t'EFRRX t 1,,,,-- - SiECT'IdN OFFICER To, 1 2 One CC t,: SiF I siUBBA RAO VADREVU' Advocate [OPUr]l Two CCs to Gt' FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS' tligh Court for the State of Telang an a lC)UTI of the Order' dated 18-03-2025 in W P Nrl'36420 of 2024

3. Two CD (locte; (Along wrth a to this OrCe'r) 'xrPY BSK B9 Prc^, !'itv f p \ .1 HIGH COUR-T DATED:2410:3111025 ORDER WP.No.26354 of 2024 /'-;j:::-c8. ,hE S t,4 C) 1li ili 2025 :z ,'1. _ '.i . t :J, ' "t 6 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS @t*, *\g\x THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO.3642o oF 2024 ORDER: (1ter Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikond.a) This Writ petition is hled under A.rticle 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the termination order, dated 17.L2.2O24, without issuing aly prior notice or without following due process of law, especially when the alleged selection of the petitioner as local candidate is well within the knowledge of the respondent authorities prior to her appointment, as bad, arbitrary, illegal, high_handed and violative of Articles, 14, 16, 19 a,d 27 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequenfly, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into senrice with a_ll consequential benefi ts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 issued Notification bearing No.O1 of 2023, d,ated 02.01.2023 for filling up of various posts including the post of Junior Assistant in District Judiciary of respondent No.2 authority. She is a resident of Hanumkonda District. Since the petitioner possessing the necessary qualifications as 2 P;K,J&NN&J \w 76420]024 mentioned r n t he Notihcation, she applied for t he post of Junior Ass;istzt rt und.er non-local category' On lJO'C6'2023' the respond:n- authorities released the provisional selection list of the canc idates, wherein the name of th€ pelitioner was reflected i-:r B.r a dradri-Kothagudem District' f\rrsuar t to the same, she t,,za:, issued appointment order, dated l4')2'2O24 appointinll ra.sr Junior Assistant with respon<len1 N<''2 duly fixing the rosl-or point. It is further stated that fr'rm '-he date of her app,rill t Tlent, she has been working to the utmost satisfaction ol the higher authorities and she als'r alrplied to departmental examinations to get eligibility for further promotior.s 'lrhile so, respondent No'2 issued <>rde r, dated 17.12.2024 tr::minating her from service on the sole ground that she lras z llpointed under local reserved post' St'e stated that the said r:rmination order was communicated tr her on

78.12.20it4

3. lt s further stated that letter, dared O2l)8'2O23, addresserl b'r respondent No.2 to respondent \o' clearly depicts thaLt r;he was provisionally selected for the post of Junior Assrstarrt under local category even thougl. shr: is non- local canrli,:la t e . In the said letter, it is also sta'.ed that one 3 PSK,J&NN&J w-36420 2024 candidate namely Sri Ram Babu Mekala, who was provisionally selected for the post of Junior Assistant belongs to non-local caldidate has withdrawn his application during certificate verification and said post was kept vacalt. It is further stated in the said letter that the petitioner was provisionally selected under local category be switched to non-local category as the said post is still vacart as on date. It is further stated that the respondents having knowledge that she was erroneously selected under local category, the respondents ought not to have to issue appointment order instead of rectifying their mistake prior to her join in the said post. It is further stated that on presumption she was successfulry serected and appointed as Junior Assistant, she did not choose to join in the post of police Constable (Civil) in Department of police and not attempting any examinations i.e., Group-I Bank jobs etc. No fault of the petitioner, the respondents have thrown her into financia-l and emotional turmoil having complete knowledge that the entire selection process is wrong.

4. Further, from the proceedings, dated I 1.O2.2O24, 26.07.2024 and. 02.12.2024, it is clear that the respondents 4 , ,SK.J&NNR,J q, )6420 ]024 ' have deci,1e,d r> de-select the petitioner and erppoint another candidate ir-r t e r place namely Degala Samraj;'am Tlrerefore the resp,trrd': r t authorities have complete krrow edge of erroneousr sr:lection process from the beginning I rot only appointing th : petitioner as Junior Assistan t' c n the other hand they were plotting to.de-select her on ihe gro'rnd that she was rrp,po:rted in wrong category, without pr- ttirg her on notice and nr t following the due process of tavr'' 'l'herefore the actior., of the respondent authorities in issuing terminatiori or-der, dated 17 '12'2024, to tl-re peticioner is illegal arid ;er'1 rrtrary.

5. Re s,pondent Nos' 1 and 2 filed countel -affidavit denying t.ht: a verments made in the affrdavit filed in support of the writ lle'tiltron and it is stated that the total nurnber of posts notifredinl]t.:CategoryofJuniorAssistan-tinth:unitof learned I)r inc irral District Judge, Bhadradri-Kothagurlem were 17. Out oi vrhich, the first five posts / I to 5 ros.-er points are in open cir.:()gory, for which both local atrd non-local candidal es o,rn compete and the most meritc'riorts c;r'ndidates outofttLeto-rrllotwouldbeselected.Itisstate.dthatinthe present cas(l none of the non-local candidates wer': selected 5 PSK,J&NN&J w_36420 2024 agatnst 1st five roster points /1st five positions as they were loss meritorious than the local candidates who competed. It is also stated that the marks secured by the 1ast selectdd candidate in 1 to 5 roster points i.e., unreserved category is 72 whlle the petitioner secured 60 marks. It is stated that the petitioner was de-sele6ted and replaced by the next eligible and meritorious candidate, namely Degala Samrajyam, who belonged to local category. The other provisionally selected candidate namely Rambabu Meka-la, a non-local candidate, who expressed his unwillingness to join the post was also replaced by the next etigible meritorious candidate than the petitioner, who belonged to local category. It is further stated that the petitioner having not challenged or disputed the factual correctness of impugned decision, her only grievance is that her services were terminated without giving any opportunity to submit her explanation and without issuing a show_cause notice. It is stated that the termination of the petitioner is not on the ground of misconduct, which would otherwise warrant arr explanation from the employee giving her due opportunity to explain her case.

6. 6 ,SK,J&NNR.J $t , 36420 2024

7. .n Jle present case, the petitioner's sr:lec ion was inadvertetrt, S he was selected in the category :ese rved for locals in fzrcr, she is a non-local' The petit'ioner <[oes not dispute the fztr:r.ual correctness of the basis of 'ernrination and thus issuin.g ,r. notice would have been an emp:y f' rrmalit5r' The petition€:r was admittedly not given an opoorlunity to rebut the gror- trds of termination order' Even if s)re v'as given an opporl.urlitr before issuing the impugned order, nc amount of explan;ltio.c would change the decision due to e dm tted fact that the [)etir-ioner being a non-local was inad vertently selected asi ,a local candidate and as such the ex:rcise of affording or)F,( D'tuniry would not yield any positive res ult' The selection ol tltt: petitioner was inadvertent and sne < ould not have bee.r r:l.to'ved to continue in the said post as it ir against the eligitrilitl' r:riteria and the selection process The initial appointrrte nt cf the petitioner itself is void and therr:fore, the petitione: r:arttot claim any accmed right to the said post and therefore, rthe is not entitled for any relief and hetrce, he prays to dismiss Lht: writ Petition.

8. Ht:ard Mr.R.Anurag, learned counsel for the petitione r ;rrt,l Mr.Vivek Jain, learned Standing Co rnsel for 7 PSK,J&NN&J w_36420_2024 the High Court for the State of Telargana, appearing for the respondents.

9. Having perused the entire material on record, the points that arise for consideration before this Bench are (il Whether termination order, d,ated, 12.12.2Ci24 issued by the respondeats. is valid and justified and same is liable to be set aside? (iil Slhether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with all consequential benelits

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in response to the notification issued by respondent No, 1, the petitioner applied to the post of Junior Assistant. She appeared for written examination, qualified and selected for the post of Junior Assistant under local category and posted before respondent No.2 being fully aware that the petitioner being a non-local candidate. Now, under the garb of inadvertence, the respondents cannot terminate her from senrice having allowed her to work for a period of one year. Learned counsel further submits that under the impression that she already appointed as Junior Assistant before respondent No.2, she lost her other opportunities wherever she applied. l,earned counsel further submitted that the 8 PSK,J&NNR,J \ p 36420 2024 responde nt s having complete knowledge ol e :roneous selection c I 1 tLe petitioner under wrong ca1.egory ' iom the beginninll, h:,r,e not only appointed her, but cn the other hand de<:irl e J to de-select her on the groun d t "ra t she was appointetl ur.rler wrong category, without putting her on notice and t i :hout fotlowing due process of la w. Learned counsel frrrl ltr:r submitted that when the petitic ner was appointerl ur <ler local category, the mode an<1 n': ethod of terminatron ;y the respondents is arbitrary as she was terminatcd .rr a highhanded manner without issrling any notice and vr thout following the principles of nzrtur rl justice and hen,:e h e prays to set aside the impugned ter mination order, dateC'7.12.2024.

11. Learned Standing Counsel for High Oou.'t for the State of TelzLrrgana appearing for the'respondents submitted that the petlt oner having fully aware that shr: is a rt'sident of Hanumkcnda District and she comes trndtrr eon-loca-I category, :rpplLed to the post of Junior Assistanr ur der local category a ntl claimed the post which is to be fill<'d up by meritoriou:i c a.ndidates of local candidates. It ir; strrted that the total nrt:ttber of posts notified for the post t 'f Junior 9 PSK,J&NN&J wP_36420_2024 Assistant in the unit of learned principal District Judge, Bhadradri-Kothagudem were 17 and out of which, first five posts / 1 to 5 roster points are open category, for which both loeal and non-local candidates can compete and the most meritorious candidates out of the total rot wourd be selected. In the present case, none of rion-rocal candidate were selected against roster points 1 to 5 /1sr five positions. It is stated that the marks secured by the last selected candidate in 1 to 5 roster points i.e., unreserved category is 72 and . the petitioner secured 6O marks. He further submitted that the petitioner was de-selected and was replaced by the next eligible and meritorious candidate namely Degala Samrajyam who belongs to the local category. He also further submitted that another provisionally selected candidate namely Rambabu Mekala, a non-local candidate, who expressed his unwillingness to join the post was also replaced by the next eligible and meritorious cardidate who belonged to local category. _ He further submitted that the petitioner cannot take undue advantage of a mistake committed by the respondents and continue in the post. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon,ble I 10 PSK.J&NNR,J I p_36420 2024 Supreme Cotrrt in State of Uttar Pradesh v' Sudhir: Kumar Singh and ol;hersr and in Atul Kumar Singh v' State of U.P.2 whereir at paragraph Nos.34, 35,36, 37,38 39,40, the Hontrir: Si rpreme Court held thus: *34. ht uieu' of aJoresaid, this Court is of the riet t thrLt the recomtt| nctt .tion of Selection Committee and appointmcnt ( 'f the i n ode bg the respdndent No.4-Committee 1f Mlnag'?ment petittaft€ uide cp1,2i1'1 r1ent order dated 29.11.1998, in absence of "lgpe Test", both ue e' c re de-hors the Rules and being so are nullitg atd uc id, ab initio ..n] c,.c ccrdinglg tlve petitioner l:.,.s no ight to hola' the cost 'tor he is ent,tl( 7 \ continue on the post nor he is etltitled to sala'g fr< m the Statc-E,,.1t,IRr. l:t't I Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar a. Goltemm(nt of 35, NCT Delhr' qnd others (2OO3) 3 SCC 548 held thctt appoi tme't ho's to be stt cth, as per statutory rules. A person notpossessirrq re'luisite qualiJ't:c tiL;r and appointment made de hors of th<; rul'-s uithout follottin,., y.'r t:edure, the aPpointment is illegal since itlcept;on t ''o est, nulLittr ctt; D legal ight to canttnue or ight ouer the post andtength of cortti .u,t L.; seruice of such illegal appointment will not help the Petitiut,'. g6. Vitkt Mohd. Srrrtaj o. Sta:te ol U.P. (2006) 2 SC(: 315, Sushil Kunqr Dtuitedi a. Basic Striksha Adhikari' Etandl (DB) (2Oo3) : t-lt LBEC 1216, in Mamta Mohg;nti case (suPra) and 'lwohd' S,artaj ,:o:tt, (SuPra), Committee oJ Management u. State.tf U):'' [DB) (2oogl - AL I 528 it Luas held that in case, approual i:; gro ed bg the authoAt,t lc d person utho lacks quaffication then it is a se iou: lapse on the par of the authoritA, iustifging suitable disciplilLdry action against such careless and negligent auttnities lllegal ap'poin ments cann(,t .e r:qulaized. There is a distinction betueen irregulai'g and tllega itlr. ln egulaitg can be regularized but not illegality. t lzozt; te Srrpn,m: tourt Cases 706 ' 2o2o scc C nl, re ,r l. 26?7 PSKJ&NNR.J w 36420_2024

37. In State oj Kq,r'l.qtc,ka us. trCSL Canteen Emplogees Welfare Ass. (2006) 1 SCC 567, Mamta MohoLntg case (Supre and. Sushil Rumar Dutiaedi co.se (&tpro) it utcls held_ that anA action of an officer or autharita of *rc state tuhich is contrary to rtttu, as in th.e facts of the present case approual granted bg the B.S.A. in spite of the fact that the petitioners Luere not qualified and there was no sanctioned posfs, such approual cannot bind the State to paA th.e salary from the Stqte Exchequer (refer; State oJ Manipur us. y Token Singh (2OO7) S ;CC 65). 3a. In Pra:|m;od. Kumar u. ll.p. Second.ary Educo/.tio'. Serrices Commissioa and. others (2OOB) 7 SCC iS3 Supreme Court held mandamus can be sought uhen there is a legal nght and coresponding dutg upon tLLe State Agencg. petitioners uho did not possess ualid degree leld had no ighl to qppointment and, therefore, could not seek mandamus. 39. In Regional Manage4 Central Bank of lrrdiq as Mad.hullka Guruprasad Dahir and. others (2OO8) j3 SCC 1ZO Supreme Court leld that a person appointed against a reserued post for S-T. against forged soctal status certiftcate cannot upon tenninatton claim to be retained merelg on th.e ground. thLlt he has uorked for ouer 20 Aeqrs. 40. Wth regard to the other pleas taken bg the leamed counsel for the petitioner for interfering in the matter and alloLuing the writ petition, wdch are to the effect tLwt opportunitg oJ heaing wcLs not giuen to the petitioner pior to passing of order dated 21 . 1 1- j g98 and the respondent no.2-BSA hos no power to canrcel the appointment of petttioner, are concerned this Court is of the uieu that on the said. ground,s the interference in the matter is not required. It is in uieu oJ the principle to the effect that issuance of a Lurit or quashing/ setting o-side of an order if reuiues another pernicious or wrong or illegal order th-en ift that euentuaw the uit court should not interfere in the matter and shauld refuse to exercise its discretionary pou.ter confened upon it under Afticle 226 of the Constitution of Indta. Tle tait coutt stauld not quosh the order if it reuiues a urong or illegal order. Vide : Go.d.d.e SC 828; Maharaja Chlr.ta;',r'.a'ni s,o,rq:n No]th Shs.hdeo u. Sto,te o.f t2 ,SK,J&NN&J \\D 16420 .2024 Bihar, ttl)99) 8 SCC 16: AIR lggg SC 36O9: 1)99 AIR SCW 3623; M.C. Vlehta u. Unio,r. of lr.dia, (1999) 6 SCC 237: AIR 1999 SC 25s 3 lllo,lliko]rjuna Mudhogal No;ga;PP(l a' Stot"'. of Kol,rnotok.L, '2000) 7 SCC 238: AIR 2oOO SC 2976: 200C AIR SCW j289: q|d t:no.ndra Singh u. Stote ol Rqiasthan, (2O'B) e SCC 545: AtR 2l,ttl't SC 2889: 2OO3 AIR SCW 3518 and Raj Kumar Soni u' Stote oJ U.I . (2oo7) 10 SCC 635 " L2. Il.r:re is no dispute as to the petitione - ap plying to the post ol th€ Junior Assistalt pursuant to the no tification issued b5' r'e:; )ondent No.1 for appointment to vztriot rs posts, including the: post of Junior Assistant. She apptrareC for the examinatiotl rlld selected against l"t five roster poi :rts / lst hve positior-rs; ztncl respondent No.2 issued appointm')nt letter to the pe:it Lor or. A perusal of Ex.P.3 application forri filed by the petitior:er r;hows that she made application fc'r tt e post of Junior r\s srs I a.nt in the Judicial District of Bhadradri- Kothagu<le:r'r as a non-local candidate. Or:ginrLlly, she belongs to I I enumkonda District, comes rrnder ron-1ocal category. [t .r; an admitted fact that the petitior er never clairned that she is a local candidate' she rlpp' )ared for compute r L,u t;ed examination and selected pro'risionally subject t':) s;atisfaction of eligibility criterizr, such as educatiorrerl c rraiifications, community, resenration, end loca-I status ir: irc,rrrdance with the Telangana Public Em ployment t3 PSK,J&NN&J w 36420-2024 (organizatron of Local cadres and Reguration of Direct Recruitment) Order 201g. It is also specifically stated in the said notification dated 30.06.2023 that if provisionally selected candidates do not fulfil the requirements as mentioned in the notification, the next meritorious candidates will be selected in that slot. It is further stated in the notification that the appointing authority deserves the right to cancel selection of appointment to the post at any stage as per the letter dated 27.O7.2023 issued by respondent.No.l and directed the learned principal District Judge Bhadradri_ Kothagudem District to issue appointment orders to the provisionally selected candidates of Junior Assistants only after verification of their antecedents by the concerned police and after confirming that there are no adverse remarks against the provisionarly selected candidates were notified against the roster points and cycle noted against their names. In the said list, petitioner,s narne was shown at SI.No.2 against roster point No.2 under the category of woman.

13. Further, respondent No.2 addressed a letter, dated O2.O8.2O23, to respondent No. I calling for information of provisionally selected candidates of different posts including t4 ,SK,J&NNR,J w. ' 3@20 2024 the petitiorer in which it is stated that the petitioner was provisionttll i, :;t:lected for the post of Junior Ass;isternt as a locai cand: Ca -,r. But, as per the study certificatt of the individua. sh,: comes under non local as 'she be ongs to Hanumkc,nrleL I)istrict and treated her as Non-l0crl irrstead of local. Res;p,rnlent No. I uide ROC No'1811/12023-Rr), dated 07.O8.2Ot23, tirldressed a letter to respondent l\o'! stating that soorL rfr,r::- taking a decision against the p€'titi( alother, lh:1' vrill inform the same for taking lurtleer lction in Subsequently , uide prc ceedings Dis.No.3!)0 /l\i)MN/DCBKGM, dated 14-o2.2C\24, tht' learned r:rztl ter. 'ner and Principal Dist:Lct Judge, Bhadradri-Kothagudem issued list of selected czrndiCates including the petitioner for tht post of Junior i\s sis t ant and after fixing the senic'rity of the candidatr:s ',)re petitioner was posted as Junior Assistant in the Court o- learned Judicial Magistrate of Firs't Class, Bhadrachatarr. It is further clarified in the said prt 'ceedings that the srrl::ted candidates are purely on temporrrry basis and they a.re, liable to be terminated at any time without any prior notic,: r r without assigning any reason. TlLerera'fter, the Registrar (Fk:r:ruitment) vide its letter dated 11.O7.2024 l5 PS 8i.J&NNR.J w 36420]024 informed the learned Principal District Judge that the High Court having considered his letter had decided to de_list the prorisionally selected candidates of Junior Assistants i.e., Sri Ram Babu Mekala and Ms.Moluguri Divya (petitioner). Further, vide R. O. C. N o. 78 I L / 2022-RC, dated 02. I2.2O24, tine respondent No.1 held that considering the letter, dated

26.07.2024, they have decided to provisionally select the candidate v2., Sandhyarani Samandula for the post of Junior Assistant and subsequently deleted her name having found her to be non-local and selected Degala Samrajyam the next meritorious candidate in her place and issued appointment order to the said provisionally selected candidate as Junior Assistant provisionally subject to verification of her antecedents by the concerned police. L4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondents having admitted that the appointment of the petitioner being a mistake on the part of the respondents and being fully aware that the petitioner being a non-local candidate, in the course of arguments to a question posed by this bench, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents placed the marks obtained by the petitioner along with the 16 PSK,J&NN&J w 36420 2024 I other se..e,.:tt:,1 candidate and also the candidates 'gho have been sel:cr-ec in her place, it is found that the f,etit.oner has got less nulrrl)3r of marks comparing to other individ rals, who have been s,-- tr:cted after selecting her in the open cr ttegory of roster poirLt 125. Admittedly, the petitioner belong,; to non- local. 'llrou g,h she is claiming to be appointetl ur.der local category. ,;h r would have al opportunity of b:ing selected under ncn-lc<:al category in the open category. But, the individuals r,rho were already appointed rrnder '-he, open category are lrore meritorious than the petitioner. 'i'herefore, the case o1'the petitioner that she got more marks thren others cannot be ,rr:r rrpted.

15. T'1 rr: other ground raised by the petil ion, rr is that without givir-re any notice, opportuniQr and rvithout following due pro,:eris of law, she was de-selected from th,: post of Junior Assis.tant and the same is in violation of pritciples of natura,I jur;trrrr. The respondents having allowed he: to work for a conside rable period of nine months at-rd odd and now cannot de-st:lect by cancelling her appointment. 'Ihe aspect of the non-follc,rving of principles of natural justice, as r;een from the entire re < ord, the appointment letter ancl th: nt,tification 1l PSK,J&NN&J w 36420 2024 which would clearly show that the selection arrd appointment of the petitioner was only provisiona-r and nght is reserved with the respondents that whenever it is found that she is not eligible, the respondents have a right to cancel her appointment at any point of time without any notice. On the ground that there being a mistake on the part of the respondents, the petitioner being a non_local and less meritorious candidate, the question of accommodating her in the open category does not arise and she caanot claim any equities on the ground that the respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice and there is mistake of appointment.

16. Admittedly, the appointment itself being a mistake of fact, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same and now claim the equities and also claim her posiUon to be restored. Under the present set of facts, no doubt the appointment of the petitioner being irregular due to the mistake and inadvertence of the concerned respondents, in view of the decision of the Honble Apex Court in yogesh Kumar a. Gouernment of NCT Delhi and. others a, Mohd.. 1 1zoos1 a scc s+e l8 PSK,J&NNR,J \ p,36420:2024 Sartaj a, lsto te of U.P+ and in Sudhir Kumar llingl,h's case {supraf thi,' b:nch is of the opinion that the Jretitiont'r has no case bejb-e this Court to seek interference r vith the terminatiorL ruder. On examination of enlire ma rerial on record arLd r:r':Ll contentions of both the parti,:s, 'his bench is of the opin:or that there are no grounds to itrter[ere with the terminatior'., c zfted 77.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1. L7 . A::ordingly, the Writ Petition is dtsm: sse 1. There shall be no orler as to costs. Miscerllaneous petitions, if any, pendrng shz'll stard closed. JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIT|:ONDA i Date: 18, Ol3.2lO25 YvL ' pooal z sc'c t t: