Telangana HC Sets Aside Revised Government Pleader Panel Prepared in Undue Haste, Orders Fresh Process at Jangaon
Justice N. Tukaramji found the State's revised panel for Government Pleader, Jangaon, arbitrary after the first panel was discarded without notice or formal supersession, directing a fresh process under G.O.Ms. No.187.
The High Court for the State of Telangana has set aside, to a limited extent, the revised panel prepared by the State for appointment of a Government Pleader at the Principal District Court, Jangaon. Justice N. Tukaramji, sitting singly, held on 27 April 2026 that the process by which the first panel — duly recommended by the District Judge and the District Collector — was discarded and replaced within days, without formal supersession, without notice to the petitioner, and without fresh applications, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court directed the respondents to undertake a fresh, transparent process in accordance with G.O.Ms. No.187, Law Department, dated 06.12.2000, affording fair opportunity to all eligible candidates including both the petitioner and the incumbent appointee.
The Dispute Before the Court
The petitioner, Varikota Ramgopal, is a senior advocate who served as Assistant Government Pleader for various courts at Jangaon during 2011–2014 and 2018–2024, including holding additional charge of District Courts. When a notification was issued inviting proposals for the post of Government Pleader, Principal District Court, Jangaon, both the District Judge and the District Collector recommended his name along with other eligible candidates on the basis of merit and seniority. That first panel was forwarded to the Law Department on 30 September 2024.
Within days, on 7 October 2024, the Government sought a fresh panel. The District Judge submitted a revised panel on 8 October 2024. Antecedent verification was completed within two days, and the second panel was finalised shortly thereafter. The petitioner's name did not appear in the revised panel. Respondent No.4 was ultimately appointed as Government Pleader vide G.O.Rt. No.565 dated 15 September 2025.
Ramgopal filed a Right to Information application seeking reasons for his exclusion; no response was furnished. Representations to competent authorities also yielded no relief, prompting the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the revised panel illegal and to direct consideration of the first panel.
The Legal Issue
The central question framed by the court was whether the action of the respondents in disregarding the first panel and preparing a revised panel was arbitrary and violative of established principles of administrative law.
The petitioner argued that the revised panel was prepared without cancelling the earlier valid panel, without issuing any fresh notification, and without affording him any opportunity to respond to the adverse material allegedly relied upon. He contended that this violated G.O.Ms. No.187 and the principles of natural justice, and defeated his legitimate expectation of fair consideration.
The respondents countered that inclusion in a panel confers no vested right to appointment, that the petitioner had suppressed a pending criminal case, and that the revised panel was prepared after due antecedent verification in accordance with Government policy. Respondent No.1 pointed to G.O.Rt. No.354, Law Department, dated 26.06.2024, under which the petitioner was discontinued from service pursuant to a policy decision upheld by competent courts. Respondent No.4, the appointed Government Pleader, maintained that her appointment was lawful and that the process was fair and non-discriminatory.
The Procedural Framework Under G.O.Ms. No.187
Justice Tukaramji examined G.O.Ms. No.187, Law Department, dated 06.12.2000, which governs the appointment of Law Officers. The Government Order prescribes a structured consultative mechanism: the District Collector prepares a panel after ascertaining the views of the District & Sessions Judge; the recommendation must include particulars of standing at the Bar, nature of practice, antecedents, professional competence, and general reputation; the Government may then appoint one among the empanelled candidates or call for a fresh panel; and selection must primarily be based on merit and suitability.
The court observed that this scheme is not one of open recruitment through public advertisement. It is a guided, structured process involving professional assessment by the District Judge and the District Collector. While the ultimate appointment lies within the executive domain, that discretion is circumscribed by procedural safeguards and the requirement of fairness. The absence of a formal recruitment process does not dilute the State's obligation to act fairly and transparently.
How the Bench Reasoned
The court applied the settled position in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, that mere inclusion in a select panel does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. However, it held that this principle does not insulate the selection process itself from scrutiny under Article 14.
Drawing on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the court reiterated that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality and that every State action must be just, fair, and reasonable. It also invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation as recognised in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, AIR 1994 SC 988, and the principle from Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489, that the State cannot act arbitrarily even in administrative or contractual matters.
Three specific aspects of the timeline troubled the court. First, the antecedent verification report — including reference to a pending private complaint against the petitioner — was already available when the first panel was forwarded on 30 September 2024. Despite that knowledge, the petitioner's name was recommended, indicating that the authority did not treat the antecedent as disqualifying at that stage. Second, the entire revised panel process was compressed into an unusually short span: a communication seeking a fresh panel on 7 October 2024, submission of the revised panel by the District Judge on 8 October 2024, antecedent verification completed within two days, and finalisation shortly thereafter. Third, there was no material on record to show that the first panel was formally superseded, that reasons were recorded for discarding it, or that the petitioner was given any opportunity to respond to the adverse material.
The court held that the prior acceptance of the same antecedent material in the first panel, followed by its sudden invocation as a ground for exclusion in the revised panel, was prima facie arbitrary and inconsistent. The absence of formal supersession, recorded reasons, and any notice to the petitioner vitiated the decision-making process.
Justice Tukaramji was careful to confine the relief. He expressly held that the petitioner has no vested or enforceable right to appointment. What he does have is a constitutional right to fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary consideration. The impugned action was set aside only to the extent it affected that right of consideration — not to the extent of directing appointment.
Order
The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions to the respondents:
The process of appointment to the post of Government Pleader, Principal District Court, Jangaon, is to be reconsidered strictly in accordance with law, G.O.Ms. No.187, and applicable constitutional principles. A fair and reasonable opportunity must be afforded to all eligible candidates, including both the petitioner and Respondent No.4. The process must be undertaken in a transparent and non-arbitrary manner.
The court made clear that no direction is issued for the appointment of the petitioner. The competent authority is to independently assess merit, suitability, and antecedents and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. No costs were awarded. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.