Telangana High Court
Smt. Manga Menaka vs State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
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
W.P.No.3690 OF 2026
25.03.2026
Between:
Smt.Manga Menaka
...Petitioner
AND
State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Law Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad - 500 022 and 3 others
...Respondents
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-I 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.2 to 4. Perused the record.
2
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.
3. Vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2025, respondent No.4 has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, which she had obtained on 19.05.2022. Undisputedly, from 19.05.2022 till the impugned order of termination was passed, the petitioner has been performing her dues to the satisfaction of the higher authorities in the department.
4. The impugned order of termination has been passed on 04.12.2025 on the ground that the post on which the petitioner was appointed, the qualification prescribed was 7th pass and 10th fail and it was learnt that meanwhile the petitioner had obtained a stamp vending license in the year 2016. The stamp vending license, according to the respondents, is issued only to those candidates who have the minimum qualification of SSC. Presuming the fact that being a stamp vendor and she must have 3 been a minimum SSC passed candidate which enabled her in getting the aforesaid license, the impugned order has been passed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner upon a specific query being put to the petitioner makes a statement that the petitioner, in fact, is a 10th fail candidate but has passed 7th 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 for obtaining the said license, the minimum 4 qualification required is SCC pass. If the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification for obtaining the stamp vending license and still she has managed to obtain the license, it is for the appropriate authority concerned, who had issued the license, to take steps in cancelling the same. On the contrary, if the petitioner has produced any documents establishing her qualification to be more than 10th pass while 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 qualification or eligibility for the same, by itself cannot be a ground for terminating the services of the petitioner as an Office Subordinate under the respondents, more particularly when she had already worked on the said post for three years time during which time the respondents could had very well conducted some sort of inquiry or at least sought an explanation from the petitioner in respect of the same.
7. In view of the aforesaid admitted factual matrix of the case, we find it difficult to uphold the order of termination dated 5 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 benefits. However, the petitioner would be entitled for the notional fixation for the entire period, including the seniority for the intervening period. In 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.
6
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J _________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J 25.03.2026 Lrkm