Mulukuri Venkata Reddy vs The Registrar
2026 Latest Caselaw 132 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mulukuri Venkata Reddy vs The Registrar on 30 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
                  Writ Petition No.7626 of 2026
                        Dated: 30.03.2026
Between:
Mulukuri Venkata Reddy                                 ...Petitioner
                               AND
The Registrar (Administration),
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & others.
                                                     ...Respondents
ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.V.Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.Manoj Reddy Kesireddy, learned standing

counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.

2. The instant is the writ petition which has been filed by the

petitioner claiming for declaration of the probation period on the

post of Superintendent and thereafter to accept the Graduation

Certificate issued by Indian Army dated 19.09.2003 and treating

him to be a Graduate, further considering his claim for filling up

vacancy of Senior Superintendent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during

the course of the pendency of the present writ petition before this

Court, many of his juniors has since been also promoted and the

case of the petitioner has been left out.

4. The respondents seems to have not considered the case of

the petitioner for declaring his probation as also for further

promotion on the ground that the petitioner does not have a

graduation degree which is one of the minimum qualification that

is required for both confirmation of probation as also for the next

promotion.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that admittedly the

petitioner had cleared his Senior School Certificate examination

from the Director of Army Education and a certificate in this regard

has been duly issued by the Army Headquarters on 27.06.2001. He

further contends that on the basis of the Senior School Certificate

Examination and the subsequent serving the Indian Army

continuously for a period of 15 years in terms of the Office

Memorandum dated 12.02.1986 ex-servicemen who are matriculate

or ex-servicemen who have obtained Indian Army Special

Certificate of Education or the corresponding certificate with 15

years of service would be eligible for appointment to any reserved

vacancy in Group - C post where the essential qualification is

graduation and in the process the Graduation certificate was also

issued by the Office of the Indian Army on 19.09.2003.

6. The petitioner also referred to the G.O.Ms.No.57/2001

dated 13.03.2001 issued by the erstwhile Government of Andhra

Pradesh dealing with the relaxation of educational qualification in

respect of ex-servicemen for re-employment against the reserved

vacancies in the State Government. For ready reference, the

relevant portion of the said G.O.Ms., is being reproduced

hereunder:

HOME (GENERAL.B) DEPARTMENT

G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 13.03.2001

1. Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Deptt. Of Personnel and Training) New Delhi, O.M.No.150152/8/82 Estt (D) dated 12.02.1986.

2. From the Director of Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad Lr.No.2209/89-F1 dated 31.01.1998.

*** ORDER:

In the reference first read above, the Government of India in their Notification orders were issued relaxing the educational qualifications in respect of ex-servicemen for their re-employment against reserved posts in the Central Government Department to the categories of Group-C and Group- D posts, which are Clerical/Accountants etc., i.e, Clerks, Typist, Stenos etc.

2. In the reference second read above, the Director, Sainik Welfare had requested the Government to implement the orders of the Government of India In the State of Andhra Pradesh relaxing the educational qualifications in respect of ex-servicemen for their re-employment against reserved posts in the State Government, Government undertakings and local bodies.

3. The Government after careful examination of the proposals issue, the following orders.

i) The posts covered under Group-IIB, Group-

III and Group-IV which are clerical and equivalent to Group-C and Group-D of Central Services. The minimum general qualifications prescribed for Group-C and Group-D posts of Central Services and Group-IIB and Group-III of State Services is Degree. Hence all the posts covered under Group-IIB and Group-III and Group-IV has been considered and relaxed by Educational qualifications in favour of ex- servicemen as prescribed the education qualifications of Government of India in the reference first read above, is a follows:-

A) For appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group-C posts a matriculate ex-servicemen (which term includes an ex-servicemen who has obtained the Indian Army Special Certificate of Education or the corresponding Certificate in the Navy or the Air Force) who has put in not less than 15 years of Service in the Armed Forces of the Union may be considered eligible for appointment of the posts for which the essential educational qualifications prescribed is graduation and where:"

7. Subsequently, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied

upon an order of the learned Single Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.1980 of 2019 which stood decided on 21.02.2019 whereby

under similar circumstances, learned Single Bench dealing with

G.O.Ms.No.57 of 2001 has held as under:

"Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue 'whether the Graduation Certificate issued by the Armed Forces Medical Services is equivalent to 12th class or not' fell for consideration before the Government of India and the same was clarified by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, vide letter dated 23.08.2017, that the Graduation Certificate issued by the Armed Forces is equivalent to 12th class and subsequently, the State Government has also taken a policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 13.03.2001 to the effect that some preference should be given in favour of ex- servicemen while making appointments.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of clarification issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, vide letter dated 23.08.2017

and also G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 31.03.2001 for appointment to the post of Village Revenue Officer.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents has contended that the case of the petitioner would be considered in terms of clarification issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, vide letter dated 23.08.2017 and also G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 13.03.2001 and appropriate orders would be passed.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Village Revenue Officer by duly taking into account the clarification issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, vide letter dated 23.08.2017 and also G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 13.03.2001 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

8. It is based upon these G.Os., and the order passed by the

learned Single Bench that petitioner seeks for similar treatment be

extended so that the petitioner's probation can be confirmed as also

he can be considered for further promotion to the post of Senior

Superintendent.

9. On the previous date of hearing, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 had taken time to seek instructions in this

regard. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Department is

still to take a decision in this regard and the matter is still pending

consideration before the respondents so far as claim of the

petitioner is concerned.

10. On a query put to learned counsel for respondent Nos.1

and 2, there was no dispute so far as G.O.Ms.No.57 dated

13.03.2001 being invoked as on date inasmuch as the said G.O has

not be superseded by any other G.O., so far as treating of ex-

servicemen with matriculation and 15 years of service being treated

as a graduate. There also was no dispute so far as the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 having not passed any orders on the administrative

side holding that G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 13.03.2001 being not

applicable upon the employees of respondent Nos.1 and 2 -

Establishment. There is also no order on the judicial side holding

that G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 13.03.2001 not being applicable upon the

employees of respondent - Establishment. In the absence of

anything as such, the only inference and presumption that can be

drawn is that G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 13.03.2001 stands squarely

applicable even on the employees working under respondent Nos.1

and 2 - Establishment.

11. In the given factual backdrop, there does not seem to be

any good reason why the benefit/relaxation provided in

G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 13.03.2001 should not be extended to the

petitioner also. The view of this Bench also gets fortified from an

earlier order of the learned Single Bench in W.P.No.1980 of 2019

decided on 21.02.2019.

12. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the writ

petition by setting aside the order passed by respondent No.1 dated

26.06.2024 and also direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to immediately

consider the case of the petitioner at par with his immediate junior

and consider the case for confirmation of probation as also for the

next promotional post granting him the relaxation that has been

extended by G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 13.03.2001 subject to the

petitioner fulfilling all other eligibilities and also on due scrutiny of

service.

13. Let the entire exercise be considered and executed within

a period of 30 days from today. The reason why this Bench is

granting a short period of 30 days for implementation is the fact

that the petitioner is retiring from service on 31.05.2026 which

shows that the petitioner hardly has got around 2 months of service

left.

14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

_________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J 30.03.2026 mrm