IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.31400 OF 2024 DATE: 27.04.2026 Between :

Varikota Ramgopal.

… Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, rep., by its Secretary, Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs & Justice Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…To issue a Writ of mandamus nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering first panel of Advocates to be appointed as Law Officers in various courts at Jangaon District and considering other panels without any notice to the Bar Association against its valid cancellation or return, which is creating conflicts and affecting our professional life, as illegal and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the first panel of advocates for the post of GP……..”

2. Heard Mr. C.M.R. Velu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Legislative Affairs appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr.K.

Laxmaiah, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

Facts of the Case:

3.1. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner is a senior Advocate with considerable professional experience and has served as Assistant Government Pleader for various Courts at Jangaon during the periods 2011-2014 and 2018-

2024, including holding additional charge of District Courts.

3.2. Pursuant to a notification inviting proposals for preparation of a panel for appointment as Government Pleader for the Court of the Principal District Judge, Jangaon, the District Judge and the District Collector duly recommended the petitioner’s name along with other eligible candidates based on merit and seniority. The said panel was accordingly submitted to the Law Department.

3.3. However, subsequently, without cancelling or superseding the earlier panel and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the respondents allegedly prepared a second panel excluding the petitioner’s name and including advocates with comparatively lesser experience. The petitioner contends that such action is arbitrary, violative of established procedure, and contrary to G.O.Ms. No.187, Law Department, dated

06.12.2000, particularly as no fresh applications were invited.

3.4. The petitioner further contends that despite submitting an application under the Right to Information Act seeking reasons for deletion of his name from the panel, no response was furnished. Representations made to the competent authorities also failed to yield any remedial action, thereby constraining the petitioner to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief.

Pleadings of the Petitioner:

4.1. The petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in disregarding the duly constituted first panel and preparing a subsequent panel is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it lacks fairness, transparency, and reasonable classification. It is further pleaded that such action infringes Article 21 of the Constitution, as it adversely affects the petitioner’s right to livelihood and professional reputation.

4.2. The petitioner asserts that the respondents acted in clear violation of the procedure prescribed under the relevant Government Orders by preparing a fresh panel without cancelling the earlier valid panel and without issuing any fresh notification or calling for applications. It is also contended that the impugned action is in breach of the principles of natural justice, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to his exclusion from the second panel.

4.3. The petitioner further submits that the preparation of multiple panels and subjecting candidates to repeated consideration is contrary to es