Telangana High Court
Varikota Ramgopal vs State Of Telangana on 27 April, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.31400 OF 2024
DATE: 27.04.2026
Between :
Varikota Ramgopal.
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, rep., by its Secretary,
Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs & Justice
Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“…To issue a Writ of mandamus nature of Writ
of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondents in not considering first panel of
Advocates to be appointed as Law Officers in
various courts at Jangaon District and
considering other panels without any notice to
the Bar Association against its valid
cancellation or return, which is creating
conflicts and affecting our professional life, as
2illegal and violative of Article 21 of Constitution
of India and consequently direct the
respondents to consider the first panel of
advocates for the post of GP……..”
2. Heard Mr. C.M.R. Velu, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Legislative
Affairs appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government
Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr.K.
Laxmaiah, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
Facts of the Case:
3.1. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner is
a senior Advocate with considerable professional experience
and has served as Assistant Government Pleader for various
Courts at Jangaon during the periods 2011-2014 and 2018-
2024, including holding additional charge of District Courts.
3.2. Pursuant to a notification inviting proposals for
preparation of a panel for appointment as Government Pleader
for the Court of the Principal District Judge, Jangaon, the District
Judge and the District Collector duly recommended the
petitioner’s name along with other eligible candidates based on
merit and seniority. The said panel was accordingly submitted to
the Law Department.
3
3.3. However, subsequently, without cancelling or
superseding the earlier panel and without issuing any notice to
the petitioner, the respondents allegedly prepared a second
panel excluding the petitioner’s name and including advocates
with comparatively lesser experience. The petitioner contends
that such action is arbitrary, violative of established procedure,
and contrary to G.O.Ms. No.187, Law Department, dated
06.12.2000, particularly as no fresh applications were invited.
3.4. The petitioner further contends that despite submitting an
application under the Right to Information Act seeking reasons
for deletion of his name from the panel, no response was
furnished. Representations made to the competent authorities
also failed to yield any remedial action, thereby constraining the
petitioner to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief.
Pleadings of the Petitioner:
4.1. The petitioner contends that the action of the
respondents in disregarding the duly constituted first panel and
preparing a subsequent panel is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it lacks
fairness, transparency, and reasonable classification. It is
further pleaded that such action infringes Article 21 of the
4
Constitution, as it adversely affects the petitioner’s right to
livelihood and professional reputation.
4.2. The petitioner asserts that the respondents acted in clear
violation of the procedure prescribed under the relevant
Government Orders by preparing a fresh panel without
cancelling the earlier valid panel and without issuing any fresh
notification or calling for applications. It is also contended that
the impugned action is in breach of the principles of natural
justice, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to
the petitioner prior to his exclusion from the second panel.
4.3. The petitioner further submits that the preparation of
multiple panels and subjecting candidates to repeated
consideration is contrary to established norms governing such
appointments. According to the petitioner, the entire process is
non-transparent and appears to be influenced by extraneous
considerations, thereby rendering the decision making process
arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
4.4. It is also pleaded that the respondents failed to act in a
fair, reasonable, and bona fide manner in the discharge of their
duties. In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks issuance of
a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in
disregarding the first panel and preparing a second panel as
5
illegal, and consequently directing the respondents to consider
the first panel, including the candidature of the petitioner, for
appointment.
Pleadings of the Respondents:
5.1. Respondent No.1, in the counter-affidavit, submits that
the writ petition is not maintainable in law, as it pertains to
matters falling within the domain of administrative and executive
discretion, particularly in the appointment of law officers. It is
contended that the petitioner was discontinued from service in
terms of G.O.Rt. No.354, Law Department, dated 26.06.2024,
pursuant to a policy decision of the Government which has been
upheld by competent courts.
5.2. It is further alleged that the petitioner has suppressed
material facts relating to the pendency of a criminal case against
him. According to Respondent No.1, the revised panel was
prepared strictly in accordance with Government policy and
after due verification of the antecedents of the candidates. Upon
such verification and policy consideration, the revised panel was
finalized, and Respondent No.4 was duly appointed as
Government Pleader vide G.O.Rt. No.565 dated 15.09.2025.
5.3. It is contended that the process was conducted in a
lawful and transparent manner. Respondent No.1 further
6
submits that mere inclusion of a candidate’s name in a panel
does not confer any enforceable or vested right to appointment,
and that such appointments are governed by executive
discretion exercised in accordance with applicable rules and
guidelines, including G.O.Ms. No.187. It is therefore submitted
that the impugned action is justified, does not suffer from
arbitrariness, illegality, or mala fides, and the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
6.1. Respondent No.2, in the counter-affidavit, submits that
the present writ petition challenges an administrative process
undertaken in accordance with Government policy and is
therefore not amenable to interference under writ jurisdiction. It
is contended that the petitioner was discontinued from service
pursuant to G.O.Ms. Nos.353 and 354, Law (G) Department,
dated 26.06.2024, following which, the process for preparation
of a fresh panel was initiated in accordance with Government
directions.
6.2. It is further submitted that the District Collector, acting in
compliance with such directions, initially prepared a panel which
was forwarded for verification. Upon receipt of verification
reports, adverse antecedents were noted, including those
pertaining to the petitioner. Consequently, in accordance with
7
Government instructions, a revised panel was sought and duly
furnished by the competent authority, resulting in the exclusion
of the petitioner and the appointment of Respondent No.4.
6.3. Respondent No.2 reiterates that mere inclusion in a
panel does not confer any vested or enforceable right to
appointment and that such inclusion is always subject to
verification of antecedents and assessment of suitability. It is
further submitted that the revision of the panel was carried out
on valid grounds and that the exclusion of the petitioner was
justified in light of the adverse reports. The entire process,
according to Respondent No.2, was conducted in a fair and
transparent manner without mala fides or procedural irregularity.
Accordingly, dismissal of the writ petition is sought.
7.1. Respondent No.4, in her counter affidavit, submits that
she is a duly qualified and practicing advocate who has been
lawfully appointed as Government Pleader for the Court of the
Principal District Judge, Jangaon, vide G.O.Rt. No.565 dated
15.09.2025. It is contended that the revised panel was prepared
by the Government in exercise of its policy powers after due
verification of antecedents and in compliance with the
prescribed procedure, and that her name was included based
on merit and suitability.
8
7.2. The exclusion of the petitioner from the panel is stated to
be on account of unsatisfactory antecedents and relevant policy
considerations, and does not suffer from any illegality. It is
further contended that mere inclusion in a panel does not confer
any vested or enforceable right to appointment, and that such
appointments fall squarely within the realm of executive
discretion.
7.3. Respondent No.4 asserts that the revised panel is valid,
having been prepared on the basis of proper verification, and
that her appointment has been made strictly in accordance with
law. It is also contended that there is no violation of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution, as the process adopted is fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory. The allegations made by
the petitioner are denied as unfounded and untenable.
Accordingly, dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for.
Rejoinder of the Petitioner:
8.1 In rejoinder, the petitioner reiterates that inclusion in the
first panel establishes his eligibility, merit, and suitability. It is
contended that the first panel, having been duly finalized and
forwarded on 30.09.2024, could not have been ignored without
formal cancellation or supersession in accordance with law.
9
8.2. The petitioner asserts that no such cancellation of the
first panel was effected prior to preparation of the revised panel.
On the contrary, the revised panel was prepared in undue haste
within a short span, i.e., on 08.10.2024, indicating arbitrariness
and lack of bona fides. It is further submitted that no notice was
issued and no fresh applications were invited prior to such
revision.
8.3. The petitioner denies the allegations regarding adverse
antecedents, asserting that they are baseless and have been
invoked only to justify his exclusion. It is further alleged that
there has been selective and discriminatory treatment in the
verification process, with similarly situated candidates being
treated unequally.
8.4. The petitioner contends that the impugned action suffers
from non-observance of principles of natural justice, non-
application of mind, and violation of prescribed procedure under
G.O.Ms. No.187. It is also asserted that the petitioner had a
legitimate expectation of fair consideration based on his
inclusion in the first panel, which has been unjustifiably
defeated. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for allowing the writ
petition.
10
Issue for determination:
9. In light of the rival submissions, the issue that arises for
consideration is whether the action of the respondents is
arbitrary and violative of established principles of administrative
law.
Analysis and conclusion:
10. It is well settled in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India
(1991) 3 SCC 47 that mere inclusion of a candidate’s name in a
select panel does not confer an indefeasible right to
appointment. However, it is equally settled that the process of
selection must be fair, non-arbitrary, and in consonance with
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. The procedure governing the appointment of Law
Officers is regulated by G.O.Ms. No.187, Law Department,
dated 06.12.2000. A careful reading of the said Government
Order reveals that the process is not one of open recruitment
but a structured consultative mechanism involving the District
Collector and the District & Sessions Judge. The relevant
provisions, inter alia, stipulate that:
11
(a) The District Collector shall prepare a panel of eligible
advocates after ascertaining the views of the District &
Sessions Judge;
(b) The recommendation must include detailed particulars
such as standing at the Bar, nature of practice,
antecedents, professional competence, and general
reputation;
(c) The Government, upon receipt of such panel, may
appoint one among the empanelled candidates or call for
a fresh panel;
(d) Eligibility criteria, including minimum standing at the Bar,
are prescribed;
(e) The selection must primarily be based on merit and
suitability, subject to considerations of equitable
representation.
12. Thus, the scheme clearly indicates that the process is
structured, guided, and regulated, and not left to unfettered
discretion. While the ultimate appointment lies within the
executive domain, such discretion is circumscribed by
procedural safeguards and the requirement of fairness.
12
13. From the statutory framework, it is evident that the role of
the District Judge and the District Collector is recommendatory
in nature. The process does not contemplate a general
recruitment procedure involving public advertisement and open
competition. Rather, it envisages identification of suitable
candidates based on professional assessment.
14. However, even within such a framework, the exercise of
power must conform to settled principles of administrative law.
The absence of a formal recruitment process does not dilute the
obligation of the State to act fairly, transparently, and
reasonably. Any deviation from the prescribed procedure or
arbitrary exercise of discretion would render the action
vulnerable to judicial review.
15. The Government, though vested with discretion either to
appoint from the panel or call for a fresh panel, must exercise
such discretion on cogent, rational, and legally sustainable
grounds. The power to seek a fresh panel cannot be exercised
in an arbitrary manner so as to defeat an already completed
process without justification.
16. The constitutional mandate of fairness in State action has
been firmly established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR
1978 SC 597, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
13
arbitrariness is antithetical to equality and that every State
action must be just, fair, and reasonable. Further, in Union of
India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, AIR 1994 SC 988,
the doctrine of legitimate expectation was recognized as a facet
of non-arbitrariness, ensuring that administrative decisions do
not defeat the reasonable expectations of individuals arising
from consistent practice or representation. Similarly, in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India,(1979)
3 SCC 489, it was held that even in contractual or administrative
matters, the State cannot act arbitrarily and must adhere to
standards of fairness and equality.
17. Applying the above principles to the present case, the
aspects assume significance is that the petitioner’s name was
included in the first panel, which was duly processed and
forwarded to the Government; the antecedent verification report,
including reference to a pending private complaint, was already
available at the time of forwarding the first panel; despite such
knowledge, the petitioner’s name was recommended, thereby
indicating that the authority did not consider the said antecedent
to be disqualifying at that stage. Subsequently, within an
unusually short span of time, the respondents initiated the
process for preparation of a revised panel.
14
18. The timeline reveals communication seeking a fresh
panel on 07.10.2024; submission of revised panel by the District
Judge on 08.10.2024; immediate forwarding for antecedent
verification and receipt of report within two days; finalization and
submission of the second panel within an extremely
compressed timeframe.
19. This sequence of events raises serious doubts regarding
the genuineness and fairness of the process. The prior
knowledge of the alleged antecedents, coupled with their
acceptance in the first panel, renders the subsequent reliance
on the same ground for exclusion prima facie arbitrary and
inconsistent.
20. Moreover, there is no material placed on record to
demonstrate that the first panel was formally superseded;
reasons were recorded for discarding the earlier panel; any
opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to explain or respond
to the alleged adverse material. The absence of these essential
procedural safeguards vitiates the decision-making process.
21. In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the
considered opinion that although the petitioner does not
possess a vested or enforceable right to appointment, as held in
Shankarsan Dash (supra), he nevertheless has a constitutional
15
right to fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary consideration in the
selection process. The action of the respondents in disregarding
the first panel and preparing a revised panel in a manner
suggestive of undue haste is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India, and contrary to the principles of natural
justice.
22. Consequently, the impugned action of preparing the
revised panel is liable to be set aside to the limited extent it
affects the petitioner’s right of consideration for appointment to
the post of Government Pleader, Principal District Court,
Jangaon and accordingly ordered.
23. In effect, the respondents are directed to:
I. Reconsider the process of appointment to the post of
Government Pleader, Principal District Court, Jangaon,
strictly in accordance with law, G.O.Ms. No.187, and
applicable constitutional principles;
II. Afford a fair and reasonable opportunity to all eligible
candidates, including the petitioner and the respondent
No.4;
III. Undertake the process in a transparent and non-arbitrary
manner.
16
24. It is, however, made clear that no direction is issued for
appointment of the petitioner; the competent authority shall
independently assess merit, suitability, and antecedents, and
take a fresh decision in accordance with law.
25. In the above terms, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
Date: 27.04.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR