IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Between: W.P.(P.I.L)No. of 2017 Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineers Forum Govt. Reg. No.76 of 2013 Zilla Parishad Compound, Kharatabad, Hyderabad Rep. by its President, Er.Kodati Shyam Sunder Dy. Executive Engineer, PIU Sub Division, Kodad, Nalgonda District SBI Bank Account No. 62134141879, Kodad Branch Email ID :: sunder299@gmail.com Mobile No. 9949505780 Petitioner A n d 1] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., General Administration (Services) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Govt., Secretariat Building, Hyderabad 3] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad 4] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Irrigation and Command Area Development Secretariat, Hyderabad 5] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Roads & Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 6] Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad... Respondents
A F F I D A V I T I Kodati Shyam Sunder, S/o Lukkas Kodati, aged 57 years, President, Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineers Forum,Govt. Reg. No.76 of 2013, Zilla Parishad Compound, Kharatabad, Hyderabad, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as hereunder: 1] PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE: SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF I respectfully submit that I am filing the present Writ Petition (PIL) as Public Interest Litigation challenging the Rule-4 of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules in so far as it relates to providing appointment into Government service as public Servant on contract/agreement/re-employment as one of the methods of appointment into Government service and also seeking direction not only restraining the State to make any appointments on contract/agreement or re-employment method and also discontinue of such appointees in filling up those posts which are included in the cadre in respective departments as per the procedure prescribed under the relevant service rules ie., either by direct recruitment or by promotion or appointment by transfer in protecting and enforcing the fundamental rights of Government civil servants who are in service and who are expecting promotion opportunity to higher post whenever such posts are available and whenever the concerned authorities intended to fill up those posts, in as much as all the posts in the cadre in respective departments supposed to be filled up following special rules as well as general rules. But because of making such appointments on contract/agreement/re-employment basis as provided in the impugned rule the promotional opportunities of the in-service candidates are being affected which and which is nothing but
depriving of the fundamental rights of the in-service candidates but also contrary to the method of appointment prescribed under the special rules in as much as there is no provision for appointment on contract/agreement/re-employment basis in special rules where the rules prescribed required qualifications, eligibility, service etc., either for making direct recruitment or making promotions /appointments by transfer and admittedly there is no such qualifications eligibility prescribed under the special rules for making appointment on contract/agreement/re-employment basis as provided under the impugned rule 4 of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules and similarly even there are no guidelines in exercising the extraordinary power available under Rule-4 of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules for making such appointment on contract agreement/re-employment basis. 2] PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: I respectfully submit that I am working as Dy. Executive Engineer, PIU Sub Division, Kodad, Nalgonda District and I was elected as President of Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineering Forum which was registered vide Registration No. 76 of 201, dt. 31.01.2013 which is having is office at Zilla Parishad Compound, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3] Declaration and Understanding of the petitioner: I, Kodati Shyam Sunder, S/o Lukkas Kodati, aged 57 years, President, Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineers Forum,Govt. Reg. No.76 of 2013, Zilla Parishad Compound, Kharatabad, Hyderabad, having temporarily come down to Hyderabad do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
3.1] That the entire litigation costs including Advocate s fees is being borne by the petitioner. The PAN Number of the petitioner is AUIPK1443K 3.2] I respectfully submit that in recent days, the state without filling up the vacant posts either by way of promotion/appointment by transfer or direct recruitment, adopting in making appointments on contract/agreement/re-employment basis even though the posts in the cadre are not only civil posts and officers reappointed to that posts are public servants and not only special rules provide for appointment by way of direct recruitment or promotion/appointment by transfer but not other methods ie., contract/agreement/re-employment basis and even though the State framed the rules invoking either Article 309 of the Constitution of India or proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 320 of the Constitution of India; but not for making appointment on contract/agreement/re-employment in as much as the State is not having any such power to prescribe any rules invoking under Rule 309 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 320 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, prescribing for making appointments to civil posts under the State on contract basis or agreement or reemployment basis in as much as those appointees cannot be treated as public servants and there cannot be any disciplinary power vested with the State/concerned authorities in as much as the AP Civil Service Rules are not applicable to such kind of appointees who committed any misconduct while they are working on contract/agreement/reemployment basis. Therefore, making such appointments that too framing impugned rules is nothing but unconstitutional and against the sprit and concept of framing the rules for regulating the service conditions for Government employees/civil servants in the State. 4] FACTS IN BRIEF ::
4.1] I respectfully submit that it is the obligation on the State to fill up the posts existing in the cadre under respective departments as per the special rules prescribed by the State invoking the power vested under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India ie, either by way of direct recruitment or by promotion or by appointment by transfer. 4.2] I respectfully submit that it is well settled principle of law that the State shall provide some promotional opportunities to the existing employees to enable them to develop their career as well as to see that employees shall not be subjected to dissatisfaction and providing promotional opportunities to employees is one of the duties of the State, in other words, enforcing fundamental rights of employees working in the state ie., Article 16 and 14 of the Constitution of India. 4.3] I respectfully submit that of course, it is always open to take the service of experienced, efficient and knowledgeable officers after their retirement for the purpose of taking them up as Advisors etc., in creating such a ex cadre post or any posts ad deemed fit by the respective departments but not appointing them against regular post in the cadre after their retirement or appointing any persons on contract or agreement basis in as much as the constitutional provisions not authorize the concerned states to fill up the regular posts in the cadre under the Government services which are treated as public servants either by way of contract/agreement or re-employment in as much as the relevant provision under the constitution relates to Government services ie., Article 309, 320 and 311 of the Constitution of India which only deals with the regular public servants under the State; but not other posts like contract, agreement or re-employment or newly invented outsourcing method. Therefore, there cannot be any rules prescribing method of appointment to the post under the cadre in the
Government services which are treated as public servants by way of contract/agreement/re-employment or outsourcing basis. 4.4 I respectfully submit that once the State created a post under the cadre, based on the requirements of such post and prescribed certain qualifications with regard to functions and duties attached to the said post, which is having nexus to the objective sought to be achieved in performing the duties, those posts shall be filled up only based on methods provided under special rules ie., direct recruitment, promotion/appointment by transfer which is the general and universal method of filling up the post under the cadre; but not by any other method. It is respectfully submitted that if the Government created any temporary posts for temporary work under temporary schemes or any other such temporary purpose, of course, it is open to the State to fill up such posts for temporary purpose on the aforesaid method that too after issuing executive instructions prescribing such method of appointment even on contract/agreement/re-employment basis to see that there cannot be any arbitrariness even for such appointments and without giving any scope for favoritism, bias or discriminating any candidate. Therefore, looking from any angle of the case, providing method of appointment by regular post under the cadre in the State service other than the method of appointment ie, direct recruitment, promotion/appointment by transfer is nothing but unconstitutional in as much as there is no constitutional provisions authorizing /enabling the State to permit the services to fill up the posts under the State on contract/agreement/re-employment basis. Therefore, any such provisions like the impugned provisions is nothing but not only unconstitutional but also violating article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India in as much as the impugned provision is taking
away the right to consider the eligible candidates for such posts by way of either direct recruitment or appointment by transfer which is nothing but violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.5] I respectfully submit that after bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh in pursuance of AP Re-organistion Act, 2014 which came into effect from 02.06.2014, the State of Telangana made several appointments in following impugned rule ie., either on contract basis/agreement/re-employment basis thereby existing employees in the State in respective departments, who are supposed to get promotional opportunities/appointments by transfer to higher posts, which is the reasonable expectation in the Government service by employees and who got such right under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, deprived of such promotional opportunities in as much as the State of Telangana is continuing officers/employees, who retired from services after attaining the age of superannuation ie., 58 years by way of adopting one of the methods prescribed under the impugned rule 4 of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, ie., by way of re-employment thereby even though the officers retired from service as per the rules but not otherwise back door method they are continuing in service at the discretion of the State ie., one year, two years and three years or so. Similarly, they are discharging duties and functions attached to the regular post, in other words, which duties they perform prior to retirement and thereby the other employees who are expecting promotion as per their seniority and qualifications, deprived of their promotional opportunities and retiring from service without having promotion.
4.6] I respectfully submit that in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, the following officers were re-appointed invoking the impugned Rule after retirement of attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. a) Sri I.Ganapathi Reddy, b) Sri P.Ravinder Rao, c) Sri Nazeer Ahmed d) Sri S.Ashok e) Sri Keshav Sadanand f) Sri Bala Narsaiah 4.7] I respectfully submit that I also reliably learnt that so many other officers who got similar benefits from Government; but I could not trace their names and orders. 4.8] I respectfully submit that the Petitioner is not concerned with the other appointments made against various posts in the State instrumentalities and the Petitioner is concerned only with regard to the posts in the State Government that too with regrd to the posts which are included in the cadre in various departments where the State framed special rules prescribing method of appointment to fill up such posts included in the cadre in respective departments under the respective special rules. 4.9] I respectfully submit that the concept of providing retirement age may be one of the reasons ie., to give promotional opportunities to all the employees but cannot allow such employment without having any promotion opportunities. It is respectfully submitted that in so far as my knowledge is concerned, there is no retirement age only to higher judiciary in the United States of America; but not anywhere, more particularly, in the State service. 4.10] I respectfully submit that allowing retired employees to continue in service by way of re-employment in the guise of impugned rule is nothing but increasing the age of superannuation to particular employees. It is respectfully submitted that if the State wanted to
increase the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years as was done in the State of AP, it is always open to the State of Telangana to increase the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years invoking the authority and power vested either under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India in making enactment or framing any rules respectively which will be applicable uniformly to all employees without having any scope for arbitrariness, favoritism or discrimination. 4.11] I respectfully submit that it is also very pertinent to mention that there are no guidelines prescribed for making method of appointment as prescribed under the impugned rule, more particularly, filling up the post by way of re-employment in giving opportunity to all retired employees and following same procedure and prescribing some eligibility conditions as well as prescribing qualifications that too out side the post in the cadre. 4.12] I respectfully submit that because of such power vested with the government under the impugned rule, the State made so many such appointments to higher posts, more particularly, appointing retired officers on re-employment basis which is one of the methods prescribed under impugned rule thereby depriving of the right of other officers who topped the seniority list and who reasonably expected to get promotion whenever existing officers retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 4.13] I respectfully submit that such appointments are being made more in the Engineering Services. It is not known why state making such appointments more only in the Engineering department even though higher officers in Engineering department got discretionary power to allow the works which are having higher value. There is a scope to
commit any irregularities, even misappropriation. It is respectfully submitted that in such an event under the statutory rules, there is no power and authority vested with the State to take any disciplinary action against such retired employees who got re-employment, in other words, there is no disciplinary jurisdiction vested with the State against retired employees for the misconduct committed by them after their retirement and during re-employment time in as much as they are not public servants and similarly, even Prevention of Corruption Act also may not be applicable for any criminal misconduct committed by officers after their re-employment in as much as they are not public servants under the definition in Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, the State ought not to have allowed the retired employees or candidates who are appointed on contract/agreement basis to discharge the duties and functions when required posts are created in the cadre and which are supposed to be held by public servants under the State; but not other than the public servants. Therefore, looking from any angle of the case, the State shall not adopt such method but the State on various reasons, which is not in the interest of the Public, adopting such method, invoking or exercising the power vested in the impugned Rule-4 of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules. 4.14] I respectfully submit that of course, if there is no eligible, qualified and competent officer available in the department, it is always open to the State to take the services of any officer even retired officers services but not giving appointment outside the cadre in giving any other kind of designation but allow them to occupy the posts existing in the cadre. Similarly, the State cannot come to a conclusion or presume that there is no eligible candidate to occupy the posts which are vacated by officers after the retirement on attaining the age of
superannuation of 58 years, more particularly, in Engineering Services. It is respectfully submitted that without giving such opportunity to officers where they are competent to hold the said post or giving impression that the State acting without bias or malafide intention other than the purpose sought to be achieved in giving such re-appointment apart from following constitutional provisions. 4.15] I respectfully submit that some of the appointments made by the State of Telangana ie., appointing retired employees/officers by way of re-employment/contract/agreement are enclosed along with the Writ Petition ie., in Engineering department and I also came to know that the State is going to make some more such appointments in place who are going to retire shortly depriving of the rights of existing in-service employees/officers who got reasonable expectation of getting promotion to higher post before retirement as per the special rules as well as in the fundamental rights available to them under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Petitioner approached this Hon ble Court in filing the present Writ Petition as Public interest Litigation invoking the jurisdiction of the Hon ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned rule to the extent as stated above in as much as the state is appointing retired officers by way of re-employment/ contract agreement basis invoking and exercising the power available under the impugned Rule even without framing any guidelines to exercise such power. 4.16] I respectfully submit that the Hon ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, categorically held that any such rule without issuing any guidelines to exercise that power is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Petitioner is compelled to challenge that Rule.
4.17] I respectfully submit that it is also very pertinent to mention that when the Government issued G.O.Ms.no. 55, Finance Department, dt.02.05.2015 wherein the Government advised to categorically review re-appointment/re-employment of the retired personnel already permitted in their department with reference to their expertise and examine necessity to continue them as consultants/osds and advisors observing that certain departments in the secretariat are appointing retired personnel as officers on special duty on contract basis and giving regular posts depriving of the appointments of regular employees and the said OSDs are entrusted no special duty but only retained the work which they used to attend prior to their retirement in respective departments, stating that these appointments are hampering promotional avenues of regular employees and preventing them to learn work and gain some experience in some focal areas and also noticing that certain departments are recommending such appointments in a very routine manner without establishing any expertise or skills; but allowing retired employees appointing against regular posts included in the cadre on contract basis is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory etc., and hostile discrimination in as much as the Government even not allowing such appointments of retired employees even against the post of Advisors and Consultants but allowing to appointment against the regular posts on contract basis instead of directing the authorities not to make such contract employment against the regular posts and also directing concerned authorities to replace such contract appointees against the regular posts in the cadre by regular officers in service as per the rules is nothing but arbitrary and discriminatory violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. SOURCE OF INFORMATION: I am able to get the aforesaid information being President of the Association as the orders issued by the Government in appointing retired employees on re-employment basis is very much available and accessed in the Telangana Government online. 6. NATURE OF EXTENT OF INJURY CAUSED / APPREHENDED :: I respectfully submit that in the event of not granting relief as sought in the present Writ Petition, not only the eligible and qualified senior officers in the department will deprive of their promotion opportunities for which they are entitled as per the special rules issued under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India but also the officers who enjoyed various posts as public servants in the Government services are again getting such position at the cost of existing employees and therefore, it is appropriate to seek relief restraining the State from making any appointments by way of contract/agreement/reemployment basis invoking the power under impugned Rule-4 of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules and restraining the Respondents from allowing officers/employees, who were appointed on contract/agreement/re-employment basis to continue in service to enable the concerned appointing authorities to fill up all the existing posts as per the rules provided under special rules read with general rules in protecting and enforcing the fundamental rights of the existing employees in the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as enforcing their legal rights available under various provisions under special/general rules. 7. ANY REPRESENTATION MADE: I respectfully submit that the Petitioner not made any representation in as much as the Petitioner challenged the rule issued by the State under
proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India which is the basis for making such appointments as stated above. 8. DELAY IF ANY: It is respectfully submitted that there is no delay in filing the present Writ Petition in as much as the Petitioner challenging the Rule issued by the State under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which is the basis for making such appointments as stated above. 9. DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON ARE: 1) G.O.Rt.no. 14, dt. 04.07.2014 2) G.O.Rt.no. 574, dt. 30.07.2015 3) G.O.Rt.no. 634, dt. 30.09.2015 4) G.O.Ms.No. 55, dt. 02.05.2016 4) G.O.Rt.No. 603, dt. 30.06.2016 6) G.O.Rt.No. 114, dt. 28.02.2017 7) G.O.Rt.no. 115, dt. 28.02.2017 8) G.O.Rt.no. 116, dt. 28.02.2017 9) G.O.Rt.No. 621, dt. 30.06.2017 10) G.O.Rt.No. 620, dt. 30.06.2017 11) G.O.Rt.No.609, dt. 29.09.2017 12) Copy of Pan Card 13) Copy of Bank Pass book 14) Copy of Aadhar Card 15) Copy of Elector Photo Identity Card 10. I respectfully submit that I have no other efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Hon'ble Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11] I further submit that I have not filed any other suit, writ or any other proceedings for the same relief in any other Court, Tribunal or authority in India. 12. MAIN RELIEF PRAYER IS AS FOLLOWS: In the circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring Rule-4 of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules in so far as it relates to 4 th method of appointment ie., contract/agreement/re-employment as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16 and 21
of the Constitution of India apart from violating proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and issue consequential and further directions restraining the Respondents from making any appointments on contract/agreement/re-employment basis against the regular post in the cadre of respective departments and further direct the Respondents to forthwith replace such appointees by promoting eligible and qualified officers as per their seniority as per the sub rules as well as general rules and pass such other order or orders as this Hon ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 13. INTERIM PRAYER: i) In the circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Honorable High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to make any appointments by way of contract/agreement/re-employment as provided under Rule-4 of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules against the regular posts included in the regular cadre strength in respective departments in the State of Telangana pending disposal of the Writ Petition. ii) In the circumstances, it is also prayed that this Hon ble High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith replace the appointments made by way of contract/agreement/re-employment basis as provided under Rule-4 of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules against the regular posts included under regular cadre in the respective departments in the state of Telangana by regular candidates by way of making promotion/appointments by transfer as prescribed under sub rules read with general rules pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
14. Caveat : It is submitted that no notice has been received of lodging a caveat by the Respondents. 15. I submit that, I had no faced Contempt of Court proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 16. I have not been ordered by the Honorable High Court or any other court not to file Public Interest Litigation cases. 17. I submit that, I am not involved in a Civil, Criminal and Revenue cases which have any nexus with present Public Interest Litigation. 18. I hereby solemnly state under oath affirm and declare that the writ petition is being instituted purely in public Interest and not at the instance of any other person or organization other than the petitioner. 19. I hereby solemnly state on oath and affirm and declare that the question raised in the Writ Petition has not been raised or agitated earlier and that there are no other case(s) or Petition(s) filed or that are pending before this Hon ble Court or any other forum or court to the best of my knowledge and, research and belief. Sworn and signed before me on this the day of October 2017 at Hyderabad Before me, Advocate/Hyderabad VERIFICATION I, Kodati Shyam Sunder, S/o Lukkas Kodati, aged 57 years, President, Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineers Forum,Govt. Reg. No.76 of 2013, Zilla Parishad Compound, Kharatabad, Hyderabad, being the Petitioner/person acquainted with the facts of the case, do hereby
declare that the contents of paras 1 to 19 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and legal advice tendered by my counsel with I believe to be true and correct. ADVOCATE Hence verified the same on this the day of October, 2017. ANNEXURE-7A IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (RULE 4 (e) OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2015 Between: W.P.(P.I.L)No. of 2017 Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineers Forum Govt. Reg. No.76 of 2013 Zilla Parishad Compound, Kharatabad, Hyderabad Rep. by its President, Er.Kodati Shyam Sunder Dy. Executive Engineer, PIU Sub Division, Kodad, Nalgonda District SBI Bank Account No. 62134141879, Kodad Branch Email ID :: sunder299@gmail.com Mobile No. 9949505780 Petitioner A n d 1] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., General Administration (Services) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Govt., Secretariat Building, Hyderabad 3] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad 4] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Irrigation and Command Area Development Secretariat, Hyderabad
5] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Roads & Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 6] Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad... Respondents AFFIDAVIT FILED UNDER RULE 7 A OF WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES I, Kodati Shyam Sunder, S/o Lukkas Kodati, aged 57 years, President, Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineers Forum,Govt. Reg. No.76 of 2013, Zilla Parishad Compound, Kharatabad, Hyderabad, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I hereby affirm and state on oath that the petitioner herein have no personal interest in the subject matter of the petition. The petitioner hereby undertake to pay exemplary costs and / or compensatory damages as directed by this court in the event of a contrary finding upon adjudication by the court that the Writ petition is filed for extraneous / personal considerations or with an oblique motive. Verify in my presence at Hyderabad on this the day of October 2017. Advocate VERIFICATION I, Kodati Shyam Sunder, S/o Lukkas Kodati, aged 57 years, President, Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineers Forum,Govt. Reg. No.76 of 2013, Zilla Parishad Compound, Kharatabad, Hyderabad, being the Petitioner/person acquainted with the facts of the case, do hereby declare that the contents of paras 1 are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and legal advice tendered by my counsel with I believe to be true and correct. Hence verified the same on this the day of October 2017. Advocate Before me Advocate for Petitioner ANNEXURE 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (RULE 4 (e) OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2015 W.P.(P.I.L)No. of 2017 Between: Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineers Forum Govt. Reg. No.76 of 2013 Zilla Parishad Compound, Kharatabad, Hyderabad Rep. by its President, Er.Kodati Shyam Sunder Dy. Executive Engineer, PIU Sub Division, Kodad, Nalgonda District SBI Bank Account No. 62134141879, Kodad Branch Email ID :: sunder299@gmail.com Mobile No. 9949505780 Petitioner A n d 1] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., General Administration (Services) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Govt., Secretariat Building, Hyderabad 3] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Dept,
Secretariat, Hyderabad 4] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Irrigation and Command Area Development Secretariat, Hyderabad 5] State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Roads & Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 6] Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad... Respondents AFFIDAVIT FILED UNDER RULE 7 A OF WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES I,. Kodati Shyam Sunder, S/o Lukkas Kodati, aged 57 years, President, Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineers Forum,Govt. Reg. No.76 of 2013, Zilla Parishad Compound, Kharatabad, Hyderabad, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I state that I have no personal gain or private oblique motive in filing the above writ petition/p.i.l. 2. I, hereby undertake to pay exemplary costs and / or compensatory damages as directed by this court in the event of a contrary finding upon adjudication by the court that the Writ Petition is filed for extraneous / personal considerations or with an oblique motive. 3. I submit that all the information based on which the writ petition has been filed based on personal research and contacting the aggrieved persons. I undertake to furnish any additional information as may be directed by the Hon ble Court. 4. I undertake that if I seek permission to withdraw the above writ petition or if I do not attend the hearing of the case either by myself or
my advocate, I shall bear the costs incurred by the respondents and any such additional costs as may be imposed in the discretion of this Hon ble Court. 5. I undertake that in the event of I wish to withdraw the above writ petition after the same is admitted, I shall do so only by filing an appropriate petition and not by any other method except with the leave of this Hon ble Court. Hyderabad Date : 15 th day of October 2017 Advocate VERIFICATION I, Kodati Shyam Sunder, S/o Lukkas Kodati, aged 57 years, President, Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineers Forum,Govt. Reg. No.76 of 2013, Zilla Parishad Compound, Kharatabad, Hyderabad, being the Petitioner/person acquainted with the facts of the case, do hereby declare that the contents of paras 1 to 5 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and legal advice tendered by my counsel with I believe to be true and correct. Advocate Hence verified the same on this the day of October 2017. Before me Advocate for Petitioner