THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.32298 of 2025 ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Mr. D.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.A.Naren Rudra, learned 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 notification specifically envisages that maximum qualification that further condition that whoever is more qualified than that is required shall not be eligible for applying the said post.

3. The petitioner applied for the said post declaring his qualification as S.S.C. and also given an undertaking which reads as under:

“ I am not possessing any higher qualification than SSC and if any information furnished by me is found false or incorrect my appointment to the post of Office Subordinate shall be terminated and I am also liable for criminal prosecution.”

4. Subsequent to his order of appointment being issued, it was learnt that the petitioner had suppressed his qualification and has obtained employment by playing mischief and fraud on the employer. The petitioner had already acquired Intermediate and had also a degree in B.Sc. When this fact came to the notice of the respondents, the impugned order has been passed.

5. Today, when the matter is taken-up, during the course of hearing on admission, a query put to learned counsel for the petitioner, he did not dispute the fact that the petitioner is a graduate with B.Sc. degree. He also did not dispute the fact that while obtaining employment, the petitioner infact had given an undertaking that he does not have higher qualification than S.S.C. two admitted facts are itself sufficient to reach to a conclusion that the petitioner had obtained employment by material suppression and by playing fraud on the employer. The contention of learned 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 affidavit filed by the petitioner himself has admitted that he had higher qualification and second is in the order of appointment, itself, clearly reflects that in the event on verification of antecedents, the selection of candidate was found to have been erroneously made they shall be removed. Likewise, there was also a condition that nature of employment being purely temporary, the services are 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.

7. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J _______________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J

31.10.2025 Nvl