COMMON ORDER

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Ms.Divya Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.41256 of 2016 and W.P.No.31381 of 2022, Mr.G.U.R.C.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.27270 of 2018 and W.P.No.31375 of 2022, Ms.M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, Mr.Y.Sai Sankalp, learned counsel representing Mr.Y.Rama Rao, along with Mr.A.Kranti Kumar Reddy, Ms.P.Namratha, Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, learned Standing Counsel for High Court for the State of Telangana, Ms.S.Suman learned Government Pleader for Finance Department, and Mr.A.Raghuram, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Perused the material available on record.

2. These are four writ petitions which have been filed for the same relief. These writ petitions were filed in the year 2016, 2018 and in the year 2022.

3. The substantive relief that the petitioner had sought for in W.P.No.41256 of 2016 was setting aside of the order dated 29.09.2016, by which the services of the petitioners as Court Managers were discontinued.

4. However, pursuant to an interim direction given by this High Court, these petitioners were taken back in service and in due course of time, three of the petitioners in the present writ petition i.e., petitioner No.1/K.Saritha Rani, petitioner No.2/G.Pravina Chary and petitioner No.10/Ghulam Yazdani, have filed yet another writ petition seeking for regularization from the date of initial appointment vide W.P.No.31381 of 2022.

5. Likewise, similar writ petition was filed by other petitioners vide W.P.No.27270 of 2018, whereby, the challenge was to the order of discontinuance of their service by 29.09.2016, again as in the earlier batch, the petitioners pursuant to an interim direction were taken back in service. Subsequently one of the petitioners viz., G.Samrat filed another writ petition No.31375 of 2022 seeking for regularization from the date of initial appointment.

6. Pending this writ petition before this Court, the Government had framed Rules for the State court manager known as the Telangana State Court Manager Services Rules, 2022, which came into force from 13.12.2022. Rule 6 of the said Rules, 2022, prescribes the method of appointment of the different categories of court manager one such category i.e., category No.3 is in respect of the petitioners herein in these batch of writ petitions. For ready reference, the relevant portion of method of appointment for this category of Court Managers is reproduced herein under:

Category:3-Court Manager:-

1. 75% posts shall be filled-up by Direct Recruitment through competitive examination and viva-voce as per the Schedule-III.

2. By absorption of the Court Managers presently employed, as a onetime measure, against the 75% Direct Recruitment quota, subject to performance and antecedents.

Provided that no person working as Court Manager will have any vested right and the appointing authority may deny the appointment to any person without assigning any reason.

Provided further that service rendered as Court Manager by any candidate under any contract or on outsourcing or contingent basis cannot be treated as past service for the purpose of fixing the seniority or other monetary benefits.

7. Pursuant to the said rules, all the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have been absorbed in the services in the respondents with effect from 21.06.2023 by a common order and since then these petitioners are working with the respondents on the regularized post.

8. Pending the petitions, the persons who stood allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh, they now stand deleted as party petitioners, as they were now working under the State of Andhra Pradesh i.e., under a different employer. As such, those petitioners stood deleted from the array of parties from this batch of writ petitions.

9. Given the fact that all the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have now been regularized in services, the only point for consideration which