WP/3690/2026 of Smt. Manga Menaka Vs State of Telangana on 25 March 2026

t3447 | Between: Smt. Manga Menaka, D/o Manga Veerappa, Aged about 35 years, Occ Office Subordina-te (Terminated), Add-itional Senior civil Judges court, sangareddy, Fl/o. Door No. s-2-21i2, Sai Krupa Nagar, Opposite Rythu Bazaat, Sangareddy-502001, Medak District, Telangana. ...'ET'T,ONER AND 't. State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Law Department' Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad - 5OOO22- Z. ftigh Court tor the Stite'of Telangana, Bqp. bV the Registrar (Administration), High Court Buildings, Hyderabad - 500 066.

3. ih"e Principal Distr-ict and Sessions Judge' Sangareddy, District Court Complex, SangareddY - 502001.

4. The AddiiionaisenioiCivil Judge, Sangareddy, District Court Complex, sangareddv - 502001. ...RES'.NDENTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3690 0F 2026 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the action of the Respondent in issuing the order of termination daled O4.12.2025 vide proceedings Order Dis.No.3 58712025, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and in contravention of Articles 14, 1 6, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set , aside the termination order dated 04.12.2025 vide proceedings Dis.No.3587/2025 issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, and (ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to the post of Office Subordinate with immediate effect, with continuity of service, back wages, and all consequential benefits.

lA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that In the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to SUSPEND the operation and implementation of the impugned termination order dated 04.12.2025 vide proceedings Order Dis.No.3587l2O25, by permitting the Petitioner to continue in service as Office Subordinate and discharge my duties, by paying salary:rnd all other service benefits to the Petitioner during the pendency of this writ petilion. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI HARENDER PERSHAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI A.NAREN RUDRA, SC FOR TSHC The Court made the following: ORDER

- 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 . ; rrii n P.Nri.3690 2s.03.2026 Betweerl Smt.Mangh''Menaka AND State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad - 500 O22 and 3 others ...Respondents ORDER, (per t{on'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel f,or the petitioner, Ms. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-[ for respondent No.1 and Mr. Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. A.Naren Rudra, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court, for respondent Nos.Z to 4. Perused the record. . ...Petitioner

- \\1.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by respondent No.3/principal District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy.

vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2025, respondent No.4 has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, which she had ot,tained on 19.05.2022. Undisputedly, from 19.05.2022 ttll the imougned order of termination was passed, the petitioner has been llerforming her dues to the satisfaction of the higher authorities in the departme$t. . i.. .. .;.r.. li\r. !, !rr,, .,rl.,r lt'he impugned order of termination has been passed on

04. L2.2025 on the ground that the post on which the petitioner was appointed, the qualification prescribed was 7th pass and l0'h fail and it was learnt that meanwhile the petitioner had obtained a ......"....,...,..'. stamp ,fq|ldiq$,, liceqtn in the year 2016. The sraup vgpding ti:fit!,tir,.ili'..i. 'i:':a;rlir -.rir-,;. . " license, ribcording to the respondents, is issued only to those candidates who have the minimum quaritication of ssc. Presumrng the fact that being a starnp vendor and she must have been a minimum SSC passed candidate which enabled her in getting the iforesaid license, the impugned order has tieen passed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitiondr upon a specific query being put to the petitioner makes a shtement that the petitioner, in fact, is a 10'r' fail candidate but has passed 7'h class and as such she is fully qualified for the post of Office Subordinate and the order of termination, therefore, is per se bad., The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the impugned order is also liable to the struck down for the simple reason that the department has passed an order of termination without conducting any sort of inquiry, not even a preliminary inquiry in this regard calling for the petitioner's explanation on the aspect of her qualification that she possesses.

6. The fact that there was no sort of inquiry conducted before passing of the 04.12.2025 order, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the impugned order of termination has been passed upon the sole ground of the petitioner having a stamp vending license and fbr obtaining the said license, the minimum -- qualification required is SCC pass. tf the petitioner does not have the rerluisite qualification for obtaining the stamp vending license and srill she has managed to obtain the license, it is for the appropriate authority concerned, who had issued the license, to take s'teps in cancelling the same. on the contrary, if the petitioner has produced any documents establishing her qualification to be more than lOth pass whire obtaining the stamp vending license, on getting such information, the respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate steps. Merely because the petitioner having somehow managed in getting the stamp vending license, without even having proper qualifrcation or eligibility for the sanre, by itself cannot be a ground for terminating the $ervices of the petitioner as an Qftice Subordinate qrrder the rEspclq(gnts, moro partlcularly wherr she had already worked on the said post for threc years time during which time the respondents could had very well conducted some sor1 of inquiry or at least sought an explanation from the petitioner in respect of the sarle.

7. fil view of the aferedaid admitted taitual rnatrix o{'the case, we find it, cl-ifficult to uphold the order of termination dated !

04.12.2025 so far as the petitioner is concerned. The impugned order dated 04.12.2025 so far as the petitioner's case is concerned stands set aside/quashed and the respondents are directed to forthwith take back the petitioner into service. However, for the intervening period i.e., from the date of termination dated 04.12.2025 till the date of reinstatement, applying the principle of 'no work no pay', the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary beneflrts. However, the petitioner would be entitled for the notional fixation for the entire period, including the seniority for the intervening period. ln addition, it is also clarified that the impugned order is set aside only on the ground of the same having been passed without any sort of inquiry and, therefore, the right of the respondents/department stand reserved if they so want to probe into the matter and in the event of sufficient materials being extracted during the course of the inquiry, the department would be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

- 'r

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand,:losed. s D /- A H M'='? i^?f H t bf ![HtH

SECTION OFFICER to', . I|;,Ii i?'s,:'"::if :'#.gt-.2iDe pa rtme nt' S ec reta ri at B u i rd i ns s' Hvd e ra b ad' : *ir}n{it#ffiidii'*t*ffeil[ ::H]i; "I;:.:11 . " ; ?SfRliil:;}t8ffi;,333?,31;, Sansareddy, District court comprex' ' 3L:'a8tS t B', "l'! E|:F,ll c u N DAvAIAM' A? Is:t?Jg 1Hf5, ^n " n a, at

6. Two ccs to"b'b"ioiSenVtcES-l' High court , TIttS*,HX]I,AREN RUDRA, SC FOR TSHC IOPUC] B. Two C;D Copies PSK. TKS Y{ /TRUE COPY/' f? i +\ :,n : :.?r' .g tl

HIGH COURT DATED:2510312026

ORDER

WP.No.3690 of 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,fa r.

l- i

202[ c,u APR ( i^- \.\::/r \i.?r\* * $ &*