Dismissed

Gulam Jeelani v. The Government of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jan 2026WA/876/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal challenged an order recalling a previous judgment and dismissing a review petition regarding an appellant's appointment on compassionate grounds. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order, holding the appointment impermissible as it occurred after the ban on aided posts and dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's suppression of material facts regarding the review pet

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Gulam Jeelani Vs The Government of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHTEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH^KUMARSINGH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 876 OF 2025

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred^{Against the order} dated 2810212025 Passed in W.P.No 28768 of 2016^{on the file of the HighCourt.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gulam Jeelani, S/o. Late Sri a Gulam Afzal, Aged about 34^years, Occ. Attender, Govt. Aided lslamia High School, Sherpura, Warangal, Warangal District

¶11

...APPELLANTMRIT P ETITION ER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Governrnent of Telangana, Rep by^{its Principal Secretary to G_overnment,} School Education Department, Secretariat^{Buildings, Hyderabad,T.S.}

¶14

the Commissioner and Director of School^{Education,State of Telangana,} Hyderabad.

¶15

The Regional Joint Director, School^{Education, Warangal.}

¶16

The District Educational Officer, Warangal^{Urban, WarangalDistrict-}

¶17

The Government Aided lslamic High School,^{Rep. by its Correspondent and} Secretary, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in^{the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of the order in^{Review l.A.No.1/2024 dated 28.O2.2025 in} W.P.No.287681 2019 in allowing the Review^{Petitionand recallingthe order} dated 15.11.2022^passed in the^{W.P.No.2876812019 by the LearnedSingle} Judge pending the above writ^appeal.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 4: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GP ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: --

¶24

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶25

I I I I I I I j I I Ii t I I I i : I :

¶26

IN THE HIGH COI'RT F1OR THE SIATE OF TEUINGAI{A AT HYDERABAD

¶27

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF"JI'STICE^{SRIAPARESIHKI'MAR SINGH} A}ID

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{G.M.MOHIUDDIN}

¶29

V'RIT APPEAL No.876 of 2o25

DATI}: O8 -or-2026

BETWEEN:

Gulam Jeelani

.Appellant

AND

The Government of^'l'elangana,

¶36

rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department^{andfor-rr others}

¶37

....Respondents

¶38

JUDGMENI

¶39

Heard sri Ramchandar Rao^{Vemuganti,Iearnedcounsel lbr} the appellant; and Sri S. Ra.hul Reddy,^{learned Special Government} Pleader attached to thc office ol the^{learned Additional Advocate} General appearing fbr respondent Nos.l to^{4 and perused the} material on record.

¶40

The present writ Appeai is directed against the^orderdated 28.02.2025 passed in Review I.A.^{No. L of 2024 in w.P.No.28768ot} 2olg, whereby the learned Single Judge recalled^{the earlierorder} dated 15.1 1 .2022 and dismissed the writ petition,^{holding that the} appointment of the appellant on compassionate^{grounds was made} subsequent to the inrposition of the ban on appointments in^aiCed posts and was, therefore, impermissible in law.

..)..

il i. I I II I

i I ,l I i

II I E r I I i

The factual matrix, in the present case, i.s that the appellantls father, who was working as an Attender in the sth respondent_ School, an aided minority institution, died in harness on 05. 12.2003. consequent thereto, the appellant's mother submitted a representation dated 30.06.2004 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The management of the 5r-1, respondentSchool appointed the appeflant as an Attender on 27.o1.2005 and forwarded a proposal dated 05.02.2oo5 to the 4th respondent seeking approval of the said appointment.

¶46

Prior thereto, the Statc Government had imposed a ban on creation and filring up of aided posts uid.e Memo No.1208o/cosE/A2/2oo4-4 dated 2o.ro.2oo4. The said ban was subsequently clarified to be applicable even to appointments on compassionate grounds uide Memo No.g544/ps-i/2o0s_3 dated 14.11.2005. The appellant earlier approached this court by filing w.P. No.22262 of 2o11, which was disposed of with a direction to consider his case. pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent rejected the proposal for approval uide proceedings dated 2g.ro.2org.

¶47

Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed w.tr.No.2g76g of 20i9, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 15.1i .2022, directing the respondents to consider the appellant,s case for approval without reference to the ban order. The said order was carried in appear in w.A. No.g46 of 2022 by the appellant;

\ \

..1..

however, the writ appeal^{was dismissed on 21.06.2023, affirmingthe} direction issued by^{the learned Single Judge.Thereafter,the} respondents filed^{ReviewI.A. No. I of 2024 beforethe learned single} Judge. By ord.er dated^{28.02.2025, the learned Single Judgeallowed} the review, recalled the^{order dated 15.11.2022and dismissed the} writ petition.

¶52

Contentions of the^aPPellant

¶53

The appellant, in this^{appeal, has raised several grounds,} contending as under:

¶54

(0 That the exercise of revierv^{jurisdictionwas barredby the} principles of finality, inasmuch^{as the order of the learned} Single Judge had already^{been affirmed by the Division} Bench in W.A. No.846^{of 2022.}

¶55

(ii) That the ban imposed by^{the State Governmentvide Memo} dated 2o.lo.2oo4 did^{not extend to appointmentson} compassionate grounds^{until theissuanceofthe} clarification dated^{14.11.2005 and, since the appellant was} appointed on 27.O1.2O05,^{the said ban had no application} to his case.

¶56

(ii0 That the learned Single^{Judge, while exercisingreview} .^{jurisdiction,erred in distinguishing the Judgmentsin w.P.} No.15621 of 2007 and^{w.P. No.21938 0f 2012, whichhad} been relied upon while^{passing the earlierorder'}

¶57

(iv) That the review application^{was filed with a delay of 301} days without proper explanation^{or condonation and was,} therefore, erroneously^entertained'

¶58

::4::

¶59

Contentions of the respondents

¶60

7' The learned Special Government pleader, while supporting order passed in review, contended as under:

¶61

(i) That the orcrer sought to be reviewed suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as the rearned singre Judge had relied upon precedents applicable to cases where appointments were made prior to the imposition of the ban, whereas, in the present case, the appellant's appointment was made after the ban came into force.

¶62

(ii) That the appelrant had suppressed th. material fact of having sought and obtained leave from the Division Bench in w.A. No.g46 of 2022 to move a review petition before the learned Single Judge, which fact was not discrosed in the review proceedings.

¶63

(iii) That the ban imposed uide Memo dated 2o.1o.2oo4 was " prospective and appricable to all appointments in aided posts' including appointments on compassionate grounds, and that the subsequent Memo dated L4.LL20os was merely crarificatory in nature and, therefore, operated retrospectively.

¶64

(iv) That the delay in filing the review petition was dury condoned and that the review was rightry a,owed on merits in the interest ofjustice.

¶65

we have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

l^,

Analysis and reasons

It is pertinent to note that^{the power of review under Section} 114 read with Order XLVII^{Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is} limited and cannot be equated^{with appellatejurisdiction.In the} present case, the learned Single^{Judge found that the earlier order} proceeded on a misapplication^{ofprecedentsrelatingto} appointments made^{prior tothe ban, whereas theappellant's} appointment was admittedty^{made after the ban.Such} misapplication constituted an error^{apparent on the face of the} record, warranting exercise^{of reviewjurisdiction.}

¶70

tt is also borne out^{from the recordthat the State had sought} leave of the Division Bench in^{W.A. No.846of 2022 to file Review} petition before the learned Single^{Judge,which fact was not} disclosed by the appellant.^{Suppression of amaterial fact,} particularly one having a bearing on the^{maintainabilityofthe} proceedings, disentitles a litigant to^{discretionary relief and justifies} the learned Single Judge's order^{inReview, warrantingno} interference in the present^appeal.

¶71

It is to be notecl that the ban^{on creation and liliing up of aided} posts was itnposed uide Memo dated^{20.LO.2O04.The contentionthat} the ban dicl not extend to^{compassionateappointmentsuntil the} issuance of the clarification^{memo dated14.11.2OO5is misconceived.} The sttbsequent memo^{isclarificatoryinnature and merely}

¶72

::6::

¶73

i t, li P E E G

¶74

elucidates the scope ancr intent of the earlier ban. As held by the Honble supreme court in Goaernment of And,hra prad.esh u. sri seaqdas vidgamandir Higtt schoolr, administrative instructions are ordi,arily prospective unress expressly or by necessary implication made otherw'ise. In the present casc, the clarification did not introduce a new restriction but only clarified what was implicit in the original ban, namery, that it applied to alr appointments in aided posts, including those ol1 colnpassionate grounds.

¶75

L2' The learned Single Judge, while exercising Review jurisdiction, rightly distinguished the judgments reried upon by the appellant, as the appointments in w.p. Nos.1562 r of 2oor and 2193g of 2or2 were made prior to the ban dated 20.Lo.2004, whereas thc appellant's appointment was admittedly made on 27.o1.2005, after the ban came into force. The finding that the appelrant was not similarly situated suffers from no infirmity. Further, the review petition, though filed with a deray of 3o I days, rvas condoned by the learned Single Judge upon being satisfied with the explanation offered' Such exercise of discretion calls for no interference in the absence of perversity or arbitrariness.

¶76

It is also ro be noted that, the dismissar of w.A.No.g 46 of 2022 cannot be construed as a final adjudication on the appellant,s entitlement to approval of appointment. The Division Bench merely

11zot t; 9 scc 6ls

declined to interfere with the direction issued by the learned single Judge to consider the appellant's case and did not issue a positive mandamus granting approval.

¶83

Conclusion

¶84

L4, For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the learned Single Judge was justified in exercising Review jurisdiction on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. The appellant's suppression of a material fact disentitles him to any equitable relief. The appellant's appointment, having been made after the imposition of the ban on aided posts, was rightly hetd to be impermissible. The order passed in Review suffers from no legal infirmity. The Writ Appeal is d-evoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶85