ORDER: NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioner’s case is that vide order of the 3 rd Respondent dated 13.02.2008, he was appointed as Village Servant, a post which was later re-designated as Village Revenue Assistant, for Anjapur village, along with three others who were posted to different villages on a temporary basis for six months and he has been continuously working since then. His appointment, he submits, is in accordance with Rule 6 of the A.P. Village Servants Service Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.1849, Revenue (V.O.) Department, dated 28.10.2005, and therefore valid. Despite this, salaries attached to the post were not paid from the date of appointment. 1.1. Petitioner points out that his appointment was specifically made due to exigency of administration, and while work was taken from him, he was denied the salary for the post of Village Revenue Assistant. Due to continuous denial of salaries, he approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2446 of 2013 seeking payment of salaries along with arrears from 13.02.2008 and for regularization of his services, as by then he had worked more than nine years. The Tribunal, by interim order dated 26.04.2013, directed payment of salaries with arrears within four weeks. The said O.A. was finally disposed on 23.06.2016, making the interim orders absolute, and further directing that petitioner be paid salaries in accordance with the Rules for the period he had worked and that his case for regular appointment as Village Revenue Assistant be considered within three months from the date of receipt of the order. 1.2. After expiry of three months, Petitioner submitted representations dated 10.08.2017 and 24.09.2017 requesting payment of salaries from 13.02.2008 and regularization. However, no payment was made. Since the State of Telangana has no Administrative Tribunal after bifurcation, Government employees had to approach this Court. Petitioner, therefore, being unable to file contempt before the Tribunal, filed Writ Petition No. 37957 of 2016 seeking implementation of the Tribunal’s orders. Interim directions were issued on 14.11.2016 to pay salaries and to call for explanation from the Government Pleader (Services), Telangana as to why Tribunal’s orders were not implemented. When the matter was posted for hearing, the Government Pleader produced Memo dated 31.01.2017 issued by the 4 th Respondent rejecting the claim of Petitioner for salary and regularization. Interim directions were issued on 14.11.2016 to pay salaries and to call for explanation from the Government Pleader (Services), Telangana as to why Tribunal’s orders were not implemented. When the matter was posted for hearing, the Government Pleader produced Memo dated 31.01.2017 issued by the 4 th Respondent rejecting the claim of Petitioner for salary and regularization. The rejection Memo stated that Petitioner, along with three others, were appointed as Village Servants on 13.02.2009 (not 2008) under A.P. Village Servants Service Rules (G.O.Ms.No.1849 dated 28.10.2005 read with G.O.Ms.No.13446/V.1.1/2004-2 dated 08.03.2006). Based on this Memo, W.P.No.37957 of 2016 was closed, giving liberty to Petitioner to challenge the Memo dated 31.01.2017. The present writ petition is filed impugning the said Memo. 1.3. The Memo further stated that File No. A/9143/2006 through which appointment was made could not be traced. It was also mentioned that the post allotted to Petitioner was filled in 2012 by Smt. R. Bhagyala Laxmi through APPSC, and that similar claims of two other appointees, Sri K. Muralidhar Prasad and Sri K. Babu Rao , were rejected by the Tribunal in O.A.No.5893 of 2013 dated 14.09.2016, hence salary cannot be paid to the Petitioner as well. Petitioner states that reliance on O.A.No.5893 of 2013 is wholly misplaced. That O.A. was dismissed because Sri Muralidhar Prasad and Sri Babu Rao could not establish that they had worked and continued in service. In contrast, in O.A.No.2446 of 2013, Petitioner had conclusively established his appointment and continuance, leading to directions by the Tribunal to pay salary and consider regularization. Equating his case with the dismissed O.A.No.5893 of 2013 is arbitrary and illegal. Issuance of the Memo dated 31.01.2017 is, therefore, in defiance of the Tribunal’s binding order and amounts to contempt. 1.4. Petitioner further states that the 3 rd Respondent himself had addressed letter dated 19.12.2015 and the Government Pleader for Revenue, Telangana, before the Tribunal on 05.02.2016 confirmed that Petitioner was entitled to salary based on certificates issued by Tahsildars for the period 13.02.2008 to 31.05.2014. These facts were considered by the Tribunal while passing final orders. At no point between 2013 and 2016 did the Respondents ever state that appointment file was untraceable. Only after directions of this Court, the stand of “file not traced” and “post filled up in 2012” was conveniently taken to deny payment. 1.5. These facts were considered by the Tribunal while passing final orders. At no point between 2013 and 2016 did the Respondents ever state that appointment file was untraceable. Only after directions of this Court, the stand of “file not traced” and “post filled up in 2012” was conveniently taken to deny payment. 1.5. Petitioner refutes the claim that the post was filled in 2012 by Smt. R. Bhagya Laxmi. If that were the case, the same should have been brought to notice of the Tribunal during pendency of O.A.No.2446 of 2013, but it was not. Instead, even in 2015, letters were addressed regarding payment of salary under Tribunal’s interim orders. Further, Government Pleader for Revenue gave a categorical opinion on 05.02.2016 that Petitioner was entitled to salaries. Hence, the contention that the post was filled up is incorrect and a deliberate attempt to defeat Tribunal’s order. 1.6. Petitioner highlights that his claim was rejected on the ground that his name was not in the pay-bill register. He states that this is a false contention, because his claim itself is based on non-payment of salary despite continuous working. Certificates issued by Tahsildars establish his service. Therefore, denial that he worked in Anajpur village is false, mischievous and misleading. As regards the contention that File No.A/9143/2006 is not traceable and that the inward register of 2006 shows entry at Sl.No.9143 only for one Sri A. Krishna, Petitioner states that this is incorrect. The same proceeding number A/9143/2006 was used in subsequent years 2007 and 2008 to issue appointments on compassionate grounds to persons like Sri Ponnala Ganapathi, Rasala Narsimha Yadav, and Morra Shankaraiah. Thus, denying the proceeding number and misrepresenting facts in the Memo is a calculated move to defy Tribunal’s order. 1.7. Petitioner finally states that from every angle, the Memo dated 31.01.2017 rejecting his claim is illegal and non est in law. Certificates issued by the 3 rd Respondent’s office clearly prove that Petitioner has been working. The orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2446 of 2013 directing payment of salaries and consideration for regularization have attained finality. Respondents, instead of implementing the same, issued a false and misleading Memo. Therefore, Petitioner prays that Memo dated 31.01.2017 be set aside and directions be issued for payment of salary from 13.02.2008 with arrears, and for consideration of his regularization as Village Revenue Assistant. 2. Respondents, instead of implementing the same, issued a false and misleading Memo. Therefore, Petitioner prays that Memo dated 31.01.2017 be set aside and directions be issued for payment of salary from 13.02.2008 with arrears, and for consideration of his regularization as Village Revenue Assistant. 2. Petitioner through I.A.No. 1 of 2023 filed additional affidavit placing on record additional material papers, stating almost on similar lines as in the writ affidavit. 3. In the counter filed by the 4 th Respondent, it is admitted that petitioner and three others were appointed emergently on 13.02.2008 as temporary stop-gap incumbents for six months to the posts at Anjapur, Lashkeguda, Omarkhan Daira and Bandaraviyala Villages because substantial Government lands in those villages were vulnerable to encroachments and the then existing Village Servants were elderly and unable to effectively safeguard Government property. The order dated 13.02.2008 expressly stated that these appointments were purely temporary and liable to termination on expiry of the stipulated six-month period without notice; accordingly, after the six months, no continuation orders were issued and initial orders ceased to exist. It is stated that petitioner himself admitted his appointment was only for six months. 3.1. The 4 th Respondent relies on Rules 6(2) and 6(3) to submit that the total period of temporary appointment cannot exceed two years without Commissioner’s approval. There are no records of any continuation orders after the initial six-month appointment dated 13.02.2008 and there is no approval by the Commissioner or Government to continue the temporary appointment; therefore, any alleged continuance beyond the six months is void ab initio and non est in law. It is contended that there is no record showing that petitioner worked after expiry of the initial six months. The certificate dated 26.05.2014 purporting to show that petitioner worked from 13.02.2008 to 31.05.2014 is, the 4th Respondent says, legally ineffective because it was issued for the purpose of claiming salary and no statutory salary bill procedure was ever followed for petitioner. On perusal of pay-bill register, petitioner’s name is absent from pay rolls from 13.02.2008 onwards; on that ground, the 4th Respondent denies entitlement to salary. 3.2. The 4 th Respondent further notes that petitioner did not produce any document showing that he was appointed as Village Revenue Assistant as distinct from Village Servant and reiterates that the Village Servant post was filled through APPSC in 2012. 3.2. The 4 th Respondent further notes that petitioner did not produce any document showing that he was appointed as Village Revenue Assistant as distinct from Village Servant and reiterates that the Village Servant post was filled through APPSC in 2012. On that basis, the 4th Respondent maintains, petitioner’s contention that he worked in the post until 31.05.2014 is false. It is also stated, the Government abolished Village Servant/Village Revenue Assistant posts, and therefore, the notion that petitioner continues in the post is untrue. 3.3. The 4th Respondent recounts that petitioner filed O.A.No. 2446 of 2013 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal seeking release of salary from date of initial appointment and consideration for regularization; Tribunal disposed of that O.A. directing respondents to release and pay salaries, if any, in accordance with rules and to consider the request for regular appointment in accordance with Rules. It is explained that because petitioner’s appointment is contrary to Rule 6(3) and as the Village Servant post was filled by an APPSC candidate in 2012, his request was rejected vide Memo dated 31.01.2017. Then, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 37957 of 2016 for implementation of the Tribunal’s order dated 23.06.2016, but when the Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal produced Memo dated 31.01.2017 rejecting petitioner’s claim for salary and regularization, this Court declined to pass further orders and dismissed the Writ Petition on 01.02.2017. 3.4. The 4th Respondent explains the substance of the impugned Memo which stated that petitioner was appointed on 13.02.2008 on a temporary emergent basis for six months; post was filled during 2012 through regular recruitment by the A.P. Public Service Commission and that Smt. R. Bhagyalaxmi was appointed as Village Servant of Anjapur village in the petitioner’s place and is receiving salary; petitioner produced working period certificates but his name does not appear in the pay bill register and there is no other evidence in office records to show he worked in Anjapur village. On these, the 4 th Respondent contends, petitioner’s request was rejected. 3.5. In relation to the cases of the three other temporary appointees who joined on 13.02.2008, the 4 th Respondent states they stand on the same footing as that of petitioner; they were temporary six-month appointees and no continuation orders exist. On these, the 4 th Respondent contends, petitioner’s request was rejected. 3.5. In relation to the cases of the three other temporary appointees who joined on 13.02.2008, the 4 th Respondent states they stand on the same footing as that of petitioner; they were temporary six-month appointees and no continuation orders exist. Two of those persons, Sri K. Muralidhar Prasad and Sri K. Babu Rao , filed O.A.No. 5893 of 2013 before the Tribunal which disposed of that O.A. on 14.09.2016 directing them to make representations to respondents who shall pass appropriate orders, and their requests were ultimately rejected. The 4 th Respondent insists that petitioner’s case was assessed on record and rule position and not merely on the orders in O.A.No.5893 of 2013. 3.6. The 4 th Respondent emphatically disputes petitioner’s contention that he had conclusively established continuance of service before the Tribunal and that O.A.No.5893 of 2013 is irrelevant; instead the 4th Respondent maintains parity between petitioner and the applicants in O.A.No.5893 of 2013 and asserts there is no variance in the factual matrix and reiterates that the petitioner was a six-month temporary appointee who was not continued. The 4 th Respondent notes the impugned Memo referred to in O.A.No.5893 of 2013 but clarifies that the Memo did not rely solely on that OA for rejecting the petitioner’s claim. 3.7. The 4th Respondent addresses petitioner’s allegation that records were misplaced by acknowledging that creation of new mandals, formation of new districts and staff transfers resulted in file misplacement; after things became clear, files were traced. It is reiterated, no record exists to show that petitioner worked as Village Servant after the initial six months and therefore, he is not entitled to reliefs. Finally, the 4th Respondent submits that since 2012, there has been no vacant Village Assistant/Village Revenue Assistant post in the mandal, Government abolished such posts and that allowing petitioner to claim continuity / regularization would amount to backdoor entry into Government service bypassing merit-based selection and competitive process, thereby infringing the rights of candidates who participated in regular recruitment and causing loss to the public exchequer. The 4 th Respondent maintains the impugned Memo and rejection of the petitioner’s claim are founded on record, statutory rule position and the post- recruitment position created by APPSC selections, and prays that the Court may dismiss petitioner’s claims. 4. The 4 th Respondent maintains the impugned Memo and rejection of the petitioner’s claim are founded on record, statutory rule position and the post- recruitment position created by APPSC selections, and prays that the Court may dismiss petitioner’s claims. 4. Petitioner files the reply affidavit responding to the counter affidavit of the 4 th respondent and reiterates the factual matrix while addressing each contention advanced therein. Petitioner reminds that Hayathnagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District comprises villages including Quthbullapur, Kawadipally, Bacharam and Anajpur and that Village Servant posts in these villages have been vacant for many years; owing to heavy workload and with higher authority permission, the then Deputy Collector & Tahsildar issued proceedings dated 25.04.2007 and thereafter File No. A/9143/2006 dated 20.01.2008 calling for Applications for appointment to the post of Village Servant for Anajpur by inviting eligible candidates to apply within fifteen days, in response to which petitioner applied and was appointed by proceedings dated 13.02.2008 and joined duty as a Village Servant (post later described as Village Revenue Assistant) in the vacancy that existed in Anajpur. 4.1. Petitioner accepts that appointment order dated 13.02.2008 described the appointment as temporary but points out that notification dated 21.01.2008 calling for applications did not specify the six-month limitation; appointment order alone recorded the six-month temporary tenure and petitioner highlights the absence of any subsequent notice or direction terminating his appointment upon expiry of six months. He therefore, disputes the 4 th respondent’s contention that the initial order “ceased to exist” automatically after six months, submitting that no formal termination order was ever issued to him and that silence and inaction by respondents cannot be construed as an effective termination. 5. Responding to the 4 th respondent’s reliance on Rule 6 of the A.P. Village Servants Service Rules, petitioner concedes that Rule 6 governs temporary appointments but submits that even if Rule 6 applied, the 4th respondent ought to have taken concrete administrative steps — specifically, issuance of termination/extension orders or seeking Commissioner’s approval for continuance beyond two years — before asserting that any continuance was void ab initio. Petitioner asserts that, historically, the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar issued notification and appointment pursuant to directions from higher authorities and that no challenge to the legality of appointment on the ground of absence of Commissioner/Government approval was advanced by respondents before the Tribunal when his O.A. was considered and disposed in his favour on 23.06.2016. 5.1. Petitioner addresses the 4th respondent’s objection to the service certificate dated 26.05.2014 by asserting that the 4 th respondent has no authority to declare that certificate invalid unless such certificate is cancelled by a competent superior. He also explains that the pay-bill procedure described by the 4 th respondent, preparation of salary bills, PAO/Treasury sanction and payment applies to regular employees, whereas temporary appointees paid honorarium may not appear on regular pay-roll registers; accordingly, the absence of his name from the pay-bill register is not a conclusive negative on his entitlement to honorarium/salary for the period he served. He stresses that the 4 th respondent’s argument conflates rules for permanent pay-roll inclusion with the separate honorarium procedure for temporary Village Revenue Assistants. 5.2. Addressing the 4 th respondent’s claim that the Village Servant/Village Revenue Assistant post was filled through APPSC in 2012 and that therefore, petitioner cannot claim salary for any period beyond that appointment, he disputes that assertion: he notes that if APPSC-recruited candidate was truly appointed in his place, terminating him, there ought to have been express termination/relieving orders, but no such orders were produced. He reiterates that his claim is premised on non-payment of honorarium despite his having discharged duties and that the Tribunal in O.A.No.2446 of 2013 on 23.06.2016 directed release of salaries, if any, in accordance with rules and directed consideration of his regularization within three months — an order which attained finality and has not been challenged by respondents. 5.3. He reiterates that his claim is premised on non-payment of honorarium despite his having discharged duties and that the Tribunal in O.A.No.2446 of 2013 on 23.06.2016 directed release of salaries, if any, in accordance with rules and directed consideration of his regularization within three months — an order which attained finality and has not been challenged by respondents. 5.3. Petitioner contests the 4 th respondent’s reliance on parity with the applicants in O.A.No.5893 of 2013 ( Sri K. Muralidhar Prasad and Sri K. Babu Rao ) and reiterates that O.A.No.2446 of 2013 (his case) is a separate proceeding which resulted in a different, favourable order on 23.06.2016; he points out that the impugned Memo dated 31.01.2017 purported to apply the order in O.A.No.5893 of 2013 to him even though he was not a party to that O.A., and he emphasizes that the 4 th respondent’s present plea that O.A.No.5893 was merely referred to and not relied upon contradicts the express language of the impugned Memo which applied O.A.No.5893 of 2013 to his case. 5.4. Petitioner responds to the 4 th respondent’s contention about file misplacement by asserting that misplacing records is the responsibility of respondents and that they cannot benefit from their own lapse; he relies on the Latin maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua / Juri Ex Injuria non Oritur to support the proposition that the 4 th respondent cannot take advantage of its own wrongful act of misplacing or failing to produce records. He points to the later RTI disclosures demonstrating that File No. A/9143/2006 and File No. A/2030/2013 were in fact traceable and available, thereby discrediting the earlier claim of non-availability. 5.5. Petitioner examines the 4 th respondent’s reliance upon Rule 6 limits and the absence of Commissioner’s approval for continuance beyond two years and reiterates that Tribunal, after considering the documentary record (including service certificates and the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar’s letter of 19.12.2015) made the interim direction absolute on 23.06.2016 and directed respondents to release salary arrears and consider regularization; having allowed that Tribunal order to become final without challenge, respondents cannot, in equity and law, decline implementation by novel reliance on procedural technicalities that were not advanced before the Tribunal or contradicted the material placed before it. 5.6. 5.6. Petitioner also stresses that the 4 th respondent’s contention that the Government has abolished Village Servant/Village Revenue Assistant posts and that allowing his claim would permit backdoor entry into service bypassing merit-based selection is not a valid answer to his entitlement to arrears for work actually performed; he reiterates that his claim is limited to payment for services rendered (i.e., honorarium/salary) from 13/02/2008 and implementation of the Tribunal’s direction to consider regularization in accordance with rules and eligibility, and that permitting his legally- adjudicated claim would not prejudice merit-based selection for fresh vacancies. 5.7. Petitioner points out procedural anomalies in the 4 th respondent’s approach: the Tahsildar produced the impugned Memo dated 31.01.2017 in Writ Petition No. 37957 of 2016 and this Court directed him to challenge that Memo separately; petitioner did so, and also highlights that the 4th respondent has not filed counter-affidavit in the present writ despite extended time and that the impugned Memo contains internally inconsistent and contradictory contentions which together demonstrate that the Memo was tentative, legally-unsound and issued without due application of mind. 5.8. Petitioner reiterates that two other persons appointed along with him pursued separate proceedings and their factual and procedural posture is not identical to his; in particular he asserts that his O.A.No.2446 of 2013 attracted specific and favourable directions which matured into finality on 23.06.2016 and therefore, respondents are bound to implement those directions; where other petitioners did not pursue representations as directed under O.A.No.5893 of 2013, the consequences cannot be equated to his case. Petitioner states that the impugned Memo dated 31.01.2017 is illegal, unsustainable and contrary to the records as later revealed by RTI disclosures; he reiterates that the 4 th respondent’s failure to challenge the Tribunal’s order or implement it, reliance on misplaced-file pleas, assertions about pay-roll omission, and contradictions about APPSC appointments are not valid grounds to deny relief and, in the petitioner’s submission, amount to improper administrative conduct which the Court should not permit to defeat a final adjudicatory order. 6. Heard Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. B. Annapurna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I. 7. In the impugned memo, it was specifically stated that petitioner was appointed on temporary basis for a period of six months and appointees are liable for termination immediately on expiry of stipulated period without issuing any notice. 6. Heard Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. B. Annapurna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I. 7. In the impugned memo, it was specifically stated that petitioner was appointed on temporary basis for a period of six months and appointees are liable for termination immediately on expiry of stipulated period without issuing any notice. Respondent’s clear case is that petitioner along with three others were appointed on emergent basis by the very same proceedings for six months and as the same is contrary to Rule 6(3), their case was also rejected. Rule 6(3) says that continuance of temporary incumbent beyond two years shall be only with the approval of the Commissioner. After initial order, there was no continuation order issued and there was no approval issued by the Commissioner or Government, hence, the alleged continuation of petitioner is void ab initio and non- est in the eye of law. Subsequently, petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2446 of 2013, wherein it was directed by order dated 26.04.2013 to release and pay the salary due to the applicant together with arrears, if any, within four weeks in accordance with rules, if the applicant had worked during the relevant period. The Tribunal’s final order dated 23.06.2016 made the interim order absolute and directed release and payment of salary, if any, in accordance with Rules, and directed that the request for regular appointment be considered in accordance with rules and eligibility, and that necessary orders be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Tribunal directed consideration of regularization ‘in accordance with rules and as per eligibility’, and fixed a timeline for administrative decision-making. The Tribunal’s directions did not, on the face of the order, function as a directive to ignore or dispense with the conditions, procedures and limitations recognised by Rule 6 of the A.P. Village Servants Service Rules or other statutory requirements that govern temporary appointments, continuance and regularization. 8. The 4 th Respondent’s undisputed case is that since the appointment is contrary to Rule 6(3) and the village servant post was filled up by a APPSC candidate namely Smt. R. Bhagyalakshmi in 2012, petitioner’s request was rejected vide order dated 31.01.2017. According to him, there is no vacancy in Anjapur Village to accommodate petitioner and to claim his salary for the post which is already filled up. According to him, there is no vacancy in Anjapur Village to accommodate petitioner and to claim his salary for the post which is already filled up. Petitioner produced working period certificate issued by the Tahsildar concerned with effect from 13.02.2008 to 31.05.2014, but on perusal of pay bill register, his name is not included in pay rolls from 13.02.2008 till date and there is no other evidence available in the office to show that he worked in Anjapur Village, hence, his request was rejected. 9. It is also to be noted, when petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 327957 of 2016 for implementation of the order dated 23.062016 of the Tribunal, in view of the memo dated 31.01.2017 issued by the Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal rejecting petitioner’s request for payment of salaries as well as appointing him on regular basis, this Court declined to pass any order and dismissed the Writ Petition on 01.02.2017. Further, it is to be seen, the two other persons namely K. Muralidhar Prasad and K. Babu Rao also filed O.A.No. 5893 of 2013 before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal directed them to make representation to respondents who were directed to pass appropriate orders and their request was also rejected. In the memo impugned, orders passed in O.A.No. 5893 of 2013 filed by the above two individual was referred to but not relied on for rejecting petitioner’s case. 10. In the counter, the 4 th respondent also taken a plea that since 2012, there is no Village Assistant / Village Revenue Assistant post vacant and further, the government had abolished the said post; petitioner is trying to enter the government service by way of backdoor appointment bypassing fair competition and merit-based selection which infringes the fundamental rights of candidates appearing in competitive process. 11. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the Writ Petition, hence, of the opinion that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 13. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.