SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 5077

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH,THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
The Chief Executive Officer – Appellant
Versus
Smt. N.Vahini – Respondent
WA 187/2026



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 APPEAL No.187 of 2026 Dated: 16.02.2026 Between:

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Ranga Reddy District.

…Appellant and Smt. N.Vahini, and 3 others.

…Respondents JUDGMENT:

Ms. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appears for the appellant.

Learned counsel Sri V.Ravi Chandran, representing learned counsel Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, appears for respondents No.1 and 2.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 15.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.14023 of 2023 preferred by respondents No.1 and 2 herein.

4. The writ petition was preferred with the following prayer:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS:-

(a) By declaring the entire action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners and not declaring probation in the cadre of Typist and also not releasing periodical increments and other allied benefits despite of possessing B.Sc (Computers) by the 1st petitioner and B.Com (Computers) as well as PGDCA by the 2nd petitioner on the untenable ground that the petitioners did not acquire typewriting qualification mentioned in the orders of appointment, other way issuing impugned Memo.No.PRRD-MZET/1/29/2021; dt.19.07.2022 by the 1st respondent and consequential show cause notice No.A2/1858/2020; dt.29.03.2023 by the 3rd respondent (which is not implemented as to today) is as highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble court in W.P.No11321/2019, dated 14.8.2019 r/w recent judgment dated 16.04.2021 in W.P.No.17966/2020 including orders in O.A.No.2201/2014, dated 02.09.2014 r/w recent orders of relaxation issued in G.O.Ms.No.1 BCW (A) Dept. dt. 04.01.2022 of the Govt. in the same subject matter and contrary to various orders issued by the Govt., in the similar subject matter, and set aside the above impugned memo dated 19.07.2022 of the 1st respondent and consequential show cause notice dated:26.03.2023 of the 3rd respondent.

(b) And consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f their date of joining into duty as Typist’s and also declare probation with all consequential benefits, such as seniority, pay fixation and other allied benefits without insisting for passing of technical qualification of Typewriting Higher Grade both Telugu and English, without reference to the present impugned orders issued in Memo No.PRRD-MZET/1/29/2021; dt.19.07.2022 by the 1st respondent and consequential show cause notice No.A2/1858/2020; dt.28.03.2023 by the 3rd respondent, in view of similar relaxation orders which was granted in favour of certain class of employees vide G.O.Ms.No.116 GA (Ser.B) Dept. dated 29.2.2008, G.O.Ms.No.68; dated: 11.03.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.1 BCW (A) Dept. dt.04.01.2022 as well as possessing of B.Sc (Computers) by the 1st petitioner and B.Com (Computers) along with PGDCA by the 2nd petitioner, in view of law laid down by this Hon’ble court in W.P.No.11321/2019 dated 14.8.2019, r/w recent orders dated 16.04.2021 in W.P.No.17966/2020 and order in O.A.No.2201/2014, dated 2.9.2014 of the erstwhile APAT in the same subject matter and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

5. The reversion of respondents No.1 and 2 (writ petitioners) was set aside by the learned writ court by the impugned order, inter alia, as under:

“14. Taking 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, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top