IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WP.No.7056 of 2026 Date:09.03.2026 Between:

Mr.G.Uday Kumar S/o.Srinivasa Rao, Siddipet.

… Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Law &Legislation Department, Hyderabad and others.

…Respondents ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms.M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.A.Naren Rudra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record. 2. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order passed by the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 10.12.2025. The ground for terminating the services of the petitioner as reflected in the order is that he has been found to be in possession of qualification much higher than what was otherwise prescribed in the notification for employment to the post of office Subordinate in the Notification No.9 of 2019, dated 31.07.2019. In the notification itself, the qualification prescribed for the said post was the candidate who have passed 7^th Class examination and should not be a candidate who has passed 10^th class or more. In the notification itself, it was specifically envisaged that any candidate in possession of a higher qualification will not be considered eligible for participation.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is a Secondary School Certificate (S.S.C.) passed candidate. This fact was suppressed by the petitioner, when he had applied and with the material suppression, he was able to get appointment vide order dated 19.05.2022. With the aforesaid material suppression, the petitioner gave his joining and in due course of time, his case was also considered for confirmation, so far his probation is concerned. Further, he also stood for promotion to the post of Process Server vide proceedings dated 03.09.2025. However, subsequently it was found that the petitioner had obtained initial appointment by suppression of fact and suppression of his original qualification.

4. There is no dispute even at this stage when the present writ petition is heard so far as the petitioner having qualification of passing the S.S.C. which is a higher qualification than the maximum qualification prescribed in the notification in which the petitioner was given appointment as office Subordinate. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the impugned order on the ground that rightly or wrongly, when once the order of appointment having been issued and probation already having been confirmed, for all practical purposes, the petitioner becomes regular employee of the respondent-Department and he even has got further promotion in his work. In the circumstances, if at all, the respondent-Department intended to terminate the services of the petitioner, minimum opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner. In the absence of which, the action on the part of the respondent is per se contrary to the principles of natural justice and thus, the impugned order for the said reason should be set aside and consequential relief may be granted.

5. We are in agreement with the petitioner insofar as an opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner before the order of cancellation of appointment or termination of services is concerned. However, the said principle cannot be applied in a case, where, there has been fraud and mischief or the material suppression made by the candidate at the stage of the initial recruitment itself, which otherwise, would not had made the petitioner eligible for the appointment at the first instance at all. There is no dispute to the aforesaid fact so far as the petitioner is concerned. In the circumstances when the initial appointment