Learned Government Pleade ra D earino on half of the respon dents fa v. bmits that there was no modified ounishme nt im DO on the Detitioner and

Heard Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti' learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned GovernmentPleaderforHomeappearingonbehalfofthe respondents. 2 n a h t Draver as under: "...to issue writ, Order or Direction' more particularly one in the nature of Writ . of Mandamus declaring the Memo No'9094/Ser lIl/Al/2020, dated 20.12'2021 issued by the 1'L Respondent rejecting the case of the petition for regularisation of his services in the category of Typist w.e.f' 31-03-2004 is wholly illegal, arbitrary without application of mind ani violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the Petitioner is entitled for regularisation of his services in the category of Typist w'e'f' 31.03.2004 with all consequential benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case'" i I II T ! t 2 SN,J W.P.No.:r1a7O of 2023

3. The c,ase of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appoinl:ed as Typist in the erstwhile A.P. Police Academy, Hyderabad in the O.C. vacancy under the compassionate grounds consequent to the death of petitioner's father who died in harness, vide G.O.Ms.No.45, Home (WNT) Department, dated :IO.O2.2OO4 in relaxation of Rules for change ot option subject to the condition that the petitioner should acquire Type Writing Higher GrarJe qualification within two years from the date of appointment and the petitioner, accordingly, acquired the same, however, insplte of petitioner's repeated requests for regularization of the petitioner's service with effect from the date of petitioner's initial appointment as Typist i.e., in the year 2004, request of the petitioner had not been considered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petltion ' PERUSED THE RECORD:

4. The imo oned order vide memo N o.9O94/Ser.III he res onden dated 20.12.2O 2 2 No.1 to the resoondent No .2 is extracted hereunder: "The attention of the Director General of Police, Telang,ana, Hyderabad, is Invited to the refererrce 1't cited'rvherein Sri P.Ramakrishna, Typist R.B.V.R.R. Telang,ana State Police Academy had preferred his \ 3 SN,., W.P.No.3187O of 2023 representation to Government for necessary orders against the modified punishment imposed on him vide G.O.Rt.No. 1332, Home (Ser.III) Dept, dt: 28'07'2012 for the reasons stated therein. Government after careful examination of the 2. matter based on the report/remarks of the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad, herebv r P. mak d .B.V RT n fi d A Pol nt m m o him , since it is not r petition. nsid ration as a is Tim Bar

3. The Director General Hyderabad, is requested to action in the matter." of Police, Telangana, take further necessary

5. The r a A Pr Ad 10 v A oraver as under: h n c ive Trib nal vide t20 8 "Application filed under the section 19 of the natural Act, 1985 praying this Tribunal to declare the action of the respondents in seeking discharge the applicant from service as Typist illegal, arbitrary' violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also prayed to direct the respondents to 4 SN,J w.P.No.3187O of 2023 regularize the services of the applicant in the post of Typist in accordance of Annexure-I, of Rule-6(a) of A.P. Ministerial Rules and further declare the purported action of the respondents in discharging the services of the applicant."

6. The said O.A No.31O9 of 2OO8 filed bv the oetitioner herein is disoosed of vide its order dated 19.O1.2O11 bv the Andhra Pradesh Adminis rative Tribunal, observinq as u nder: '''A reading of the above said provision :;hows that gerreral qualification is typewriting in Telugu l-{igher Grade. If candidates are not available possessing the said qu,alification, the candidates possessing type\ rriting in lower grade can be appointed. Minimum qualifir::ation is lower typewriting in Telugu. So, the 1st qualifir.:ation is preferential qualification Prescribing a qualifir::ation which is not minimum under the appointment or,ler is unjust. The applicant passed typewriting Telugu lower examiniltion held in January/February, 2008, as can be seen frcm the documents produced by the applicant. The certificate was issued on 31.3.2008 So, he accluired the mir imum qualification within the time permissible. In-fact, he also acquired typewriting English lrigher examiniltion held in August, 2008 and typewriting English lower examination held in lan, 2002 and typewriting Telugu higher examination held in August- tisj'at \ i ! {- 5 sN,J W-P.No.31a7O of 2023 September, 2009. When the applicant acquired minimum qualification prescribed within the time' there cannot be any order to discharge him' Therefore' the applicant acquired minimum qualification within time and impugned order is bad' 6. Point No.2:- As the applicant has acquired minimum qualification within time, the question extension of time acquiring the qualification does not arrived at' Point No.3:- Therefore' the impugned show 7. cause notice is bad under law and it is liable to be set aside and the applicant shall be continued as typist in pursuance of the original appointment'

8.PointNo.4:Intheresult,theApplicationisallowed' The impugned show cause notice dated t7 '4'2008 is is made absolute' The set aside Interim order o h e t t nw! e t f VMAis is d u

7. A bare perusal of the impugned memo dated 20'12'2021 passed by the respondent No'1 clearly indicates that the request of the petitioner for regularization of the service in the category of Typist from date of initial appointment was reiected referring to modified punishment alleged to mechanicallY bY have been imposed on the petitioner and further it is stated in t 6 SN,J w.P.No 31870 of 2023 the said impugned Memo dated 20.t2.2021 of the 1st respondent that the sarne is a time barred petition of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly submits that there is no punishment imposed upon the petitioner at any point of time and the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.1 denying request of the petitioner for regularization of his service in the category of Typist from the date of initial appointment in the year 2004 on the ground of the alleged modified punishment imposed upon the petitioner, is untenable and inFact contrary to the record.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that the respondent No.1 again ccncluded in the said impugned Memo of the 1't respondent dated

20.12.2021, that the request of the petitioner is a time barred petition though the petitioner had been representing since many years and hence the impugned Memo proceedings of the respondent No.1 dated 21.72.2021 is not only illegal and arbitrary and also without application of mind.

10. Learned Government Pleade ra D earino on half of the respon dents fa vs bmits that there was no modified ounishme nt im DO on the Detitioner and the said UD \ 1,1 f; a' 7 w.P.No.31a70 SN,, 0f 2023 r

11. The A'P' Administr 19.01.2011 Passed in O'A that the Petitioner qualification as on the d without considering the said aspect' had been regularized in the catego 01'10'2009 bY takinq into cons certificate issued for TYPe ative Tribunat in the order dated .No.3109 of 2008' categorically held acquired the minimum required ate of petitioner's appointment and the service of the Petitioner ry of TYPist with effect from ideration the date of the Writing Telugu Higher Grade *E Qualification I I within time' I r I Tribunal in L2. This Court opines that the respondent No'1 herein did not consider the order passed by the A'P' Administiative favour of the petitioner in O'A'No'3109 of 2008 dated 19.01.2011 in the risht perspective and also did not -:]::::j" of petitioners service tn plea of the petitioner for regularization the category of Typist from the date of petitioner's appointment $i: i[ ,i T lt E II 8 SN,J w.P.No.3187o of 2O23 ( in the year 2004 and had mechanically rejected the said request of the petitioner alleging that modified punishment had been imposed on the petitioner which is factually incorrect and contrary to record, and on the ground that it is a time barred petition ignoring petitioner's requests made from tinre to time since the derte of petitioner's initial appointment as Typist i.e., in the year 2004, as specifically averred by the petitioner in the affidavit fileld by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition.

13. Takino into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents and, c) The Order dated 19.01.2011 passed in O.A.No.31O9 of 2OO8 with V.M.A.No.88 of 2OO9 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, * 9 SN,J W.P.No.3la7O of 2O23 The writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 2O'L2'2OLZ vide memo No.9094/Ser.ltllALl2O2O passed by the respondent No'1 and the respondent No'1 is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for regularization of petitioner's servicefromthedateofpetitioner,sinitia!appointmentas Typist i.e., in the year 2OO4 duly tak'ng into consideration the order dated 19.01.2011 passed in O'A'No'31O9 of 2OO8 with V.M.A.No.88 of 2OO9 in favour of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance to Law' on the said request of the petitioner within a period of four( ) weeksfromthedateofreceiptofacopyofthisorderand duly communicate the decision to the petit'oner herein' However, there shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any' Pending in 7 the Writ Petition shall also stand closed ' //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SREE RAMA M RTHY DEPUTY REGI TRAR SECTION FICER Telangana, Hyderabad. 1 . The Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat Buildings, State of 2. Direct"or Geneial of Police, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. Director, RBVRR Telangana State Police Academy, Himayat Sagar, 4. Oire CC to Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, Advocate {OPUCI- 5. Two CC to The GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. Hyderabad[OUT] 6. Two CD Copies To, 1 l TJ BS i 1i I I HIGH COUR.T CC TODAY DATED:1810312025 I I I ) 1 ORDER WP.No.31870 of 2023 gTATE o E 'ls sq [tt t4 C) s + :J o o *n DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4 qIx