IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT PETITION No.35191 of 2025

DATE: 27.11.2025

BETWEEN:

Pawar Subash.

….Petitioner

AND

The Union of India and 3 others.

….Respondents

ORDER

The present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India assails the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in O.A.No.021/00478/2022 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said O.A filed by the petitioner by confirming the order dated 30.04.2022 passed by the respondents, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement to the post of Attendant/A (later re-designated as Work Assistant/A) with effect from 27.05.2013. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to

quash the order of the Tribunal and a consequential relief of reinstatement with pay and allowances, seniority and promotions from 27.05.2013.

Factual matrix (in brief)

2. To appreciate the facts involved in the present Writ Petition in a proper perspective, it is apposite to enlist the chronology of events.

i. As can be seen from the table above, the respondents issued Advertisement No.NFC/01/2010 (Ex.P7; Page No.40) inviting applications for various posts including the post of Attendant/A (later re-designated as Work Assistant/A) under category No.6. The prescribed qualification for the said post was “tenth pass (SSC)”.

ii. The petitioner who had passed tenth class (SSC) in the year 2003 (Ex.P6; Page No.38) and Intermediate in the year 2006 (Ex.P6; Page No.39) applied for the said post on 26.07.2010. In his application, the petitioner declared his qualification as ‘tenth pass (SSC)’, even though the petitioner had already passed Intermediate in the year 2006.

iii. Based on this declaration, the petitioner was shortlisted and appeared for written examination on 03.03.2013 with Roll.No.07727 (Ex.P8; Page No.45 and 46). The petitioner subsequently attended an interview on 20.03.2013 and on the said date, he declared his qualification as ‘Intermediate discontinued’ vide declaration dated 20.03.2013. The petitioner subsequently submitted another undertaking on

22.04.2013 affirming SSC as his highest qualification.

iv. Based on this declaration, the petitioner was provisionally selected and issued an offer of appointment dated 24.04.2013 on an ad hoc basis (Ex.P10; Page No.50) was issued to the petitioner.

v. The petitioner was issued a formal appointment order dated 21.05.2013 (Ex.P11; Page No.51) wherein it is specifically mentioned, that the offer of appointment for the post of Work Assistant/A shall be inter alia subject to the following condition (iii) extracted as under:

“iii) Your appointment on regular basis will be subject to verification of Character and Antecedents by the concerned authorities. If any of the information furnished by you is proved wrong, or if it is detected that you have submitted false documents or suppressed information, your services are liable to be terminated and action as deemed fit will be initiated against you”.

vi. On 25.05.2013, the petitioner submitted a declaration, disclosing that the petitioner had actually passed Intermediate examination in the year 2006.

vii. Treating this as willful suppression of ‘material information’ at the stage of application and during subsequent verification process, the respondents terminated the ad hoc services of the petitioner vide order dated 27.05.2013 (Ex.P4; Page No.36) as per clause (iii) of the offer of appointment dated

21.05.2013 extracted above.

viii. The petitioner challenged the termination order before the Tribunal in O.A.No.021/1322/2015. By order dated 28.01.2022 the Tribunal has set aside the termination order and remanded the matter, directing the respondents to reconsider the aspect of keeping the petitioner in public employment, for which he is otherwise qualified, and to pass a speaking order.

ix. The order of