High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Law and Judicial Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Registrar, (Recrrritment) Honourable High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda District. The Special Sessions Judge-cum-lV Additional District and Sessions Judge,, Fast Track Court for Cases Relating to Atrocities against Women, Nalgonda Diskict. ...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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of 'Certiorari' call for the records relating to Proc. Dis.No.1387/2025141-PR- 10012023 daled 1O10412O25 ol the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda terminating the services of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of A(icles 14, 16 and 2'l of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to law and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including continuity of servic,e, back-wages and other attendant benefits in the interest ofjustice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor- rt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the termination order in Proc. Dis.No. 1387120251A.1- PR-100/2023 dated 1O10412025 of the Principal District arrd Sessions Judge, Nalgonda and reinstate the petitioner into service in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOFI SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI A.NAREN RUDIIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.32298 of 2025 BDEB, @er Hon'ble SriJustice P.Sam Koshy) Mr. D.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner' Ms.M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.l and Mr.A.Naren Rudra, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the record.

2. The instant is the writ petition which has been filed assailing the order of termination from the service dated 10.04.2025' The petitioner herein was appointed for the post of office Subordinate in the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda. He was appointed pursuant to Notification No.6/2023, dated 02.01.2023 and was appointed vide proceedings dated 03.01.2024 on the post of office Subordinate' The notification specificalty envisages that maximum qualihcation that is required for the post of offrce Subordinale was S.S.C' with further condition that whoever is more qualihed than that is required shall not be eligible for applying the said post. 2

3. The petitioner applied for the said post declaring his qualification as S.S.C. and also given an undertakirg which reads as under: " I am not possessing any higher qualification than SSC and if any information fumished by me is fc,und false or inconect my appointment to the post ol Office Subordinate shall be terminated and I am also lirrble for criminal prosecution." 1?- 4 Subsequent to his order of appointment bein6i ;issued, it was leamt that the petitioner had suppressed his qualification and has obtained employment by playing mischief and fiaud on the employer. The petitioner had already acquired Inr.e6"6iu,. urd had also a degree in B.Sc. When this fact came t,t the notice of the respondents, the impugned order has been passec

5. Today, when the matter is taken-up, during the course of hearing on adlnission, a query put to leamed counsel for the petitioner, he did not dispute the fact that the petitioner is a graduate with I].Sc. degree. He also did not dispure the fact that while obtaining employment, the petitioner infact l-rad given an undertaking that he does not have higher qualificati,rn than S.S.C. that which was required for the post of offrce Subordinate. These two admitted facts are itself sufficient to reach to a conclusion that \ 3 the petitioner had obtained employment by material suppression and by playing fraud on the employer. The contention of leamed counsel for the petitioner before issuance of order of termination the respondents ought to have conducted an enquiry may not be necessary for two reasons. First for the reason that in the affrdavit 'filed by the petitioner himself has admitted that he had higher qualification and second is in the order of appointment, iself, clearly reflects that in the event on verification of antecedents, the selection of candidate was found to have been erroneously made I \ they shall be removed. Likewise, there was also a condition that nature of employment being purely temporary, the services are \ I liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons and notice.

6. In the teeth of the aforesaid conditions indicated in the appointment order, the petitioner having obtained employment by material suppression of facts, we are of the considered opinion that issuance of show-cause notice or holding of enquiry would become only an empty formality. In terms of order of appointment itself the services had been terminated, which the respondents have undertaken and therefore, we do not find any illegality with the order so passed. ,/ 4

7. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendinp,, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. AHMTD ABDULI.AH KHAN AS$qTANT REGISTRAR , \-_--_--'. -' SECTION OFFICER 'l . One CC to SRI D.RAMAKRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI A.NAREN RUDRA, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Court for the S;tate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies BSR LS HIGH COURT DATED:31 11012025 ORDER WP.No.32298 of 2025 {rrtE ( .)- .- ?f mq'; \4 a '1. * FA,IcHEo DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS { {,,'{