[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
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. 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
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
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
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.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
25.03.2026
Lrkm
