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.911 of 2026 Date:10.03.2026 Between:

Mr.A.Ramachandram … Petitioner And Chair Person and District Legal Services Authority-cum-

District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and another.

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

Heard Mr.G.U.R.C. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Shashi Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Legal Services Authority, appearing for respondents and perused the record.

2. The instant is the Writ Petition which has been filed assailing the order dated 23.12.2025, whereby, the services of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from 15.12.2025 on his attaining the age of 65 years. The petitioner in the instant case has filed the instant writ petition after termination from service i.e. on 05.01.2026. The sole ground on which the writ petition has been filed and that the petitioner has been strongly banking upon was the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.15923 of 2014 which stood decided on 14.07.2016. The said writ petition, where the petitioner therein was in the course of allowing the writ petition permitted to remain in service till he completes the age of 69 years.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein also belongs to the same district and the nature of employment of the petitioner as compared to the writ petitioner in the aforementioned writ petition No.15923 of 2014 also is the same. However, the petitioner by virtue of the impugned order in the writ petition has not been permitted to remain in employment till he completes the age of 69 years. Therefore, it was prayed on the ground of parity, that the petitioner herein also should be permitted to continue in the employment till he completes the age of 69 years. Thus, the action of the petitioner amounts to arbitrariness and also is hit by the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, whereby, two persons in the same department and in the same district have been treated separately. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that let the respondents at least consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by the High Court in WP.No.15923 of 2014.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, opposing the petition submits that there is factual difference between the facts in WP.No.15923 of 2014, when compared to the facts of the present writ petition. According to the respondents, that was a case where the order of appointment did not have any upper age limit prescribed. Moreover, there were also some guidelines which laid down the conditions under which the recruitments were made under then prevailing circumstances vide G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 31.03.2011. Moreover, in the order of appointment also, there was no upper age limit prescribed, so far as the termination of service or discontinuance from service on completion of any particular length of service or attaining a particular age.

5. In the instant case, the notification under which the petitioner had applied for appointment as Typist-cum-Assistant on contractual basis was the notification dated 16.10.2024. The criteria prescribed in the notification itself was that the employees who are retired from judicial department who have not completed the age of 65 years as on 15.10.2024 would be eligible for appointment. The petitioner participated in the said recruitment process and found eligible and order of appointment was issued on 25.04.2025. The very first clause of the appointment order dated 25.04.2025 was that “the candidate tenure of appointment shall be till he attains the age of 65 years or till the need ceases whichever is earlier.” This condition to the appointment specifically enumerates the upper age limit of service which in other words means the moment a can