Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15889
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Sam Koshy, Narsing Rao Nandikonda, JJ
P. Srivani – Appellant
Versus
Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of Telangana – Respondent
WP.No.9040 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saleem
For the Respondents: A. Naren Rudra, Government Pleader for GAD
An appointment obtained through material suppression of educational qualifications or fraud is void ab initio. Such a candidate cannot claim a right to continuance in service or protection under the principles of natural justice, regardless of subsequent service confirmation or probation completion.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a termination order issued under Notification No. 9 of 2019, which stipulated that candidates for the post of Office Subordinate must have passed the 7th class and specifically excluded those with qualifications of 10th class or above. The petitioner was terminated after it was discovered she possessed an SSC qualification and had pursued an Intermediate course, facts she had suppressed during recruitment. The court found that the petitioner had obtained the appointment through material suppression of facts. The primary issue was whether the termination of services was illegal or against the principles of natural justice since the petitioner had successfully completed her probation. The court reasoned that while the right to a hearing is generally required for termination, this principle does not apply where the initial appointment was obtained through 'fraud and mischief' or material suppression. The court held that such an appointment is void ab initio, and subsequent confirmation of service does not condone the initial fraudulent act. The Writ petition stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to termination order based on suppression of higher educational qualifications contrary to recruitment notification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contention regarding service record versus evidence of misrepresentation of academic credentials. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. verification of material suppression of ssc qualification despite successful probation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. fraud and material suppression at recruitment stage renders appointment void ab initio, overriding natural justice claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petition affirming the legality of termination. (Para 14) |
Heard Mr.Saleem, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.A.Naren Rudra, learned Standing Counsel for High Court appearing for respondent No.1 & 3 and learned Government Pleader for GAD appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s, viz.,
“… to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the records issued by the 3rd respondent authority in proceedings in Disc No.3587/2025, dated 04.12.2025 by passing termination order of the petitioner from the post of Office Subordinate on the ground that the petitioner suppressed the fact of possessing higher educational qualification than the prescribed qualification of 7th class pass in terms of the notification No.9 of 2019, dated 31.07.2019 issued by the 1st respondent authority for appointment of Office Subordinates in Sangareddy District Court and declare it as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and also against the principles of natural justice and against the Service Rules and CCCA Rules and consequently set aside and quash the proceeding in Disc No.3587/2025, dated 04.12.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent authority and direct the respondent authorities to immediately reinstate and continue the petitioner into service as Office Subordinate.”
3. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order passed by the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 04.12.2025. The ground for terminating the services of the petitioner as reflected in the order is that she 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 7th Class examination and should not be a candidate who has passed 10th 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.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had completed the probation period successfully in the department and serving in the department to the satisfaction of superior officers without giving any scope of complaint and also without any lapse. However, on 14.08.2025, the petitioner was served with memo vide proceedings in Disc. No.2412/Admn/2025, dated 14.08.2025 stating that she have possessed SSC qualification and on enquiry the authority came to know that, petitioner had pursued Intermediate course in the year 2011 with C.E.C(Telugu) Medium group. The petitioner submitted her written explanation dated 22.08.2025 by stating that she have not possessed S.S.C certificate and not completed Intermediate and submitted that she had 7th class certificate and requested the authority to drop the proceedings on humanitarian ground.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.3 without considering petitioner’s request and without conducting any enquiry in the matter passed proceedings in Disc. No.3587/2025, Dated 04.12.2025, terminating the petitioner from the post of Office Subordinate and fu
