ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. The 2 nd respondent’s proceedings dated 26.02.2024 recommending the 3 rd respondent for appointment as Qazi of Vikarabad Municipality and Mandal, overlooking G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 12.04.2005, is under challenge. 2. Petitioner states that he was appointed as Qazi by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 12.04.2005 for the areas of Parganas, Narkhoda, Alur, Janwada, Abdullanagar, Farooqnagar (Shadnagar), Kothur, Balanagar and Keshampet Mandals, which were part of Rangareddy and Mahaboobnagar Districts, after bifurcation, areas including Vikarabad, Nawabpet, Pudur, Chowdapur, Kulukcherla and Doma came under Vikarabad District. Since his appointment, he has been performing marriages of Muslims without any complaints from any authority and his family has been serving as Qazis for more than 200 years. 2.1. Under Section 3 of the Kazis Act, 1880, petitioner appointed Naib Qazis to assist him. He appointed Naib Qazi Mohd. Aijaz Hussain Siddiqui exclusively for Vikarabad and Vikarabad Mandal who has been performing marriages on his behalf during his absence. Despite his valid appointment, some individuals submitted Applications seeking appointment as Qazis for Vikarabad. Petitioner therefore, is stated to have submitted written representation dated 19.06.2023 to Respondents 1 and 2 objecting to such Applications, specifically mentioning the 3 rd respondent’s Application. However, the 2 nd respondent ignored these objections and recommended the 3 rd respondent’s name. Petitioner points out that checklist attached to the impugned proceedings clearly mentions at Serial No.3 that marriages in Vikarabad are being performed by the Khazi of Shadnagar. This proves that the 2 nd respondent was aware of petitioner’s appointment yet proceeded to recommend the 3 rd respondent, which petitioner contends is arbitrary and illegal. 2.2. It is further stated, in 2011, when a Qazi appointed to Dharoor began interfering in Vikarabad, petitioner filed a complaint before the authorities; on directions from higher officials, the District Minority Welfare Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 23.11.2011 confirming that Vikarabad Mandal falls under Aloor Parganas and that petitioner was performing marriages there. Vikarabad Municipality and Mandal fall under Aloor Parganas, for which he has been appointed since 2005. His father and grandfather also served as Qazis in Vikarabad under the same jurisdiction. 2.3. According to petitioner, appointment of Qazis is governed by the Kazis Act, 1880 (Act No.12 of 1880). During the Nizam era, appointments and jurisdiction of Qazis were regulated through established rules, and those boundaries are followed even today. His father and grandfather also served as Qazis in Vikarabad under the same jurisdiction. 2.3. According to petitioner, appointment of Qazis is governed by the Kazis Act, 1880 (Act No.12 of 1880). During the Nizam era, appointments and jurisdiction of Qazis were regulated through established rules, and those boundaries are followed even today. From 5 th August 1954, the Kazis Act, 1880 became applicable to Andhra Pradesh and is now in force in Telangana. Section 2 of the Act empowers the Government to appoint Qazis for local areas, and Section 3 allows appointed Qazis to nominate Naib Qazis. He contends that while the Government can appoint more than one Qazi, it can only do so after properly dividing or demarcating areas based on necessity. Appointing another Qazi where one already exists without demarcation is illegal. Petitioner’s objections were not referred to in the Collector’s report, rendering the recommendation arbitrary and invalid. 2.4. Citing the example of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, where historically seven Qazis served seven zones, petitioner contends that when Government decided to appoint additional Qazi, it first issued G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 20.03.2002 dividing the seven zones into 32, and only then appointed 32 Qazis. This shows that new appointments can be made only after territorial demarcation. Until recently, no formal rules existed for Qazi appointments. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 29.04.2022 containing guidelines and procedures. Part A included FAQs. and Part B outlined the appointment process. By issuing this G.O., Government effectively delegated its powers under Section 2 of the Kazis Act to the District Collector, who, in turn, delegated them to subordinate officers such as the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar and Mandal Revenue Inspector. Petitioner contended that this abdication of authority is contrary to law. 2.5. Recommending another Qazi in an existing jurisdiction without prior delimitation causes administrative confusion and unhealthy competition, argues petitioner. In similar Writ Petition No. 5639 of 2023, existing Qazis challenged the District Collector’s recommendation of new Qazis and this Court granted interim suspension of the said orders, and the matter is still pending. 3. By order dated 26.06.2024, this Court grnted interim stay of the impugned proceedings and the said order was extended from time to time. 4. In similar Writ Petition No. 5639 of 2023, existing Qazis challenged the District Collector’s recommendation of new Qazis and this Court granted interim suspension of the said orders, and the matter is still pending. 3. By order dated 26.06.2024, this Court grnted interim stay of the impugned proceedings and the said order was extended from time to time. 4. While so, writ petitioner had taken out I.A.No. 1 of 2025 to implead the proposed respondent as the latter vide letter dated 30.11.2024 declared that the 3 rd respondent fabricated certificate of experience document; later, vide letter dated 06.02.2025, alleged that petitioner had coerced the said proposed respondent to sign the letter dated 30.11.2024 with undue influence and threatening. The double standards of proposed party squarely affect the outcome of the Writ Petition; therefore, it is imperative to implead the proposed party. 5. To the said Application, the 3 rd respondent filed counter stating that when the Writ Petition was about to be decided on merits, petitioner filed the present Application only to delay the proceedings. He has already filed Counter traversing all factual and legal issues and the proposed respondent has also filed his Counter explaining the legal procedure followed for his appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 29.04.2022 with supporting documents. Despite this, petitioner filed the present Application with concocted material to serve his ulterior motives and obstruct the adjudication of the main case. The impugned proceedings are only a recommendation for appointment and no final order has been passed. Therefore, petitioner has no locus and Writ Petition has been filed in haste without any valid reason or necessity. 5.1. It is stated, the proposed respondent is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the present case. There has been no change in stance as alleged, and the lis between petitioner and the 3 rd respondent can be effectively adjudicated without impleading the proposed respondent. Reliance placed on letters said to have been issued by the proposed respondent is an afterthought and intended only to drag the matter. It is further stated that he has already clarified all issues by filing the Memo dated 24.03.2025 refuting the false allegations raised by petitioner. 6. Reliance placed on letters said to have been issued by the proposed respondent is an afterthought and intended only to drag the matter. It is further stated that he has already clarified all issues by filing the Memo dated 24.03.2025 refuting the false allegations raised by petitioner. 6. The proposed respondent also filed counter stating that writ petitioner is unnecessarily dragging him into this litigation; he is no way concerned with the present lis between petitioner and the 3 rd respondent; he had already addressed letter dated 06.02.2025 to Respondents 1 to 3 explaining under what circumstances, he was compelled to issue letter dated 30.11.2024. Subsequently, with the support of elders, letter dated 06.02.2025 was issued stamped and signed from his office in the interest of Muslim community residing in Vikarabad District. 7. In view of the averments of writ petitioner, this Court feels that the proposed party is a proper and necessary party to this Writ Petition. I.A.No. 1 of 2025 is therefore, ordered. 8. In the Writ Petition, the 2 nd respondent - District Collector, Vikarabad filed counter stating that petitioner and five others applied for appointment as Government Qazi for Vikarabad Mandal. On his direction, the Tahsildar, Vikarabad Mandal conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report, dated 19.09.2023 with a checklist and on the basis of that report, the 3 rd respondent was recommended for appointment as Government Qazi for Vikarabad Mandal and District as per the applicable guidelines. The SHO, Vikarabad PS also submitted a report dated 13.02.2024 stating that petitioner is a resident of Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, outside Vikarabad PS limits, making verification of the petitioner’s details difficult. The SHO also issued a Police Verification Certificate dated 12.02.2024 certifying that the 3 rd respondent was not involved in any criminal case within Vikarabad PS limits up to that date. Having considered the reports and in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 29.04.2022 and the Government Khazi Act, 1880 (Central Act XII of 1880), the District Collector sent a recommendation dated 26.02.2024 to the Secretary to Government, Minorities Welfare Department, Telangana, recommending the 3 rd respondent for appointment with supporting eligibility details. 8.1. The 2 nd respondent specifically denies petitioner’s allegation that recommendation dated 26.02.2024 violated G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 12.04.2005, and asserts that the entire process followed due procedure and the Government guidelines, therefore, prays that Writ Petition be dismissed. 9. 8.1. The 2 nd respondent specifically denies petitioner’s allegation that recommendation dated 26.02.2024 violated G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 12.04.2005, and asserts that the entire process followed due procedure and the Government guidelines, therefore, prays that Writ Petition be dismissed. 9. The 3rd respondent filed counter stating that G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 12.04.2005 relates to earlier appointment of Petitioner as Kazi for Parganas Narkhoda, Alur, Janwada, Abdullahnagar, Farooqnagar (Shadnagar), Kothur, Balangar, and Keshampet Mandal, covering parts of Ranga Reddy District and Mahboobnagar District. Therefore, the said G.O. does not extend to Vikarabad District and by any interpretation, no prejudice has been caused to Petitioner due to the impugned proceedings. The 3 rd Respondent contends that Petitioner is not an affected party, and no act has been committed under the impugned proceedings that violates the principles of natural justice. Petitioner has failed to make out any valid ground to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 9.1. The 3rd Respondent further places reliance on Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, which empowers the State Government to appoint one or more Kazis for any local area where a considerable number of Muhammadans reside and desire such an appointment, after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of that locality. In accordance with this statutory provision, the 3 rd Respondent submits that since the formation of Vikarabad District in 2016, there had been no appointment of Kazi for Vikarabad Mandal and Municipality. Considering the considerable Muslim population and the pressing necessity for a duly appointed Kazi in the area, the 3rd Respondent made a formal Application to the 2nd Respondent seeking appointment as Kazi for Vikarabad Mandal and Municipality. The Muslim residents of Vikarabad District submitted a representation dated 15.02.2023 to the 2 nd Respondent requesting his appointment as Kazi. Subsequently, several organizations and mosque committees, including the Managing Committee of Masjid-E-Aqsa, Memorial Educational & Welfare Society, Madina Masjid Committee, Masjid-E-Noor Committee, Jama Masjid Committee, Minority Welfare Association, Masjid-E-Quba Committee and Markazi Milad Committee, submitted a joint representation dated 04.10.2023 to the District Minority Welfare Officer, Vikarabad District highlighting the difficulties faced by the Muslim community of Vikarabad Mandal and Town, including the inability of the assistants of Petitioner to correctly recite Khutbe-Nikah, and they strongly urged the authorities to appoint the 3 rd Respondent as Kazi for Vikarabad. 9.2. 9.2. The 3rd Respondent further states that he has successfully qualified the Qazaath Examination conducted by Jamia Nizamia, a recognized Islamic institution; possesses four years of experience working as Naib Qazi and holds a Master’s Degree in Jurisprudence, being well-versed in Muslim Personal Law and Qazaath procedures. Owing to his qualifications, educational background and service experience, the Muslim community in large numbers recommended his name for appointment to the post of Kazi for Vikarabad Mandal and Municipality. The impugned proceedings were issued after following the comprehensive guidelines prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 29.04.2022, which provides detailed instructions for appointment of Kazis. The entire process was carried out transparently, in accordance with procedure, and without any deviation or irregularity. Hence, the contention of Petitioner that the said proceedings are illegal or arbitrary is unfounded and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Petitioner filed reply reiterating his averments in the writ affidavit. 11. Heard Sri P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, Sri Syed Sohail, learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the 4 th respondent. 12. Upon consideration of the pleadings and documents placed before the Court, it is evident that Petitioner was appointed under G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 12.04.2005 for specific areas within Ranga Reddy and Mahboobnagar Districts. The said G.O. does not explicitly include Vikarabad Municipality and Mandal, which came into existence after reorganization. The impugned proceedings issued recommending the 3rd Respondent’s name for appointment as Qazi of Vikarabad Municipality and Mandal was only at the recommendation stage, and no final appointment had been made at the time of filing this Writ Petition. Hence, the Petitioner’s grievance at this stage is premature. 13. The record reveals that due process as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 29.04.2022 was followed while processing the recommendation. Petitioner has failed to substantiate that any prejudice has been caused or that proceedings violate his vested rights. The letters and documents relied upon by him, including the letter dated 30.11.2024, have been disowned by the author himself, the 4th Respondent, who explained that they were obtained under threat and coercion. Therefore, reliance on such documents is misplaced. Petitioner has failed to substantiate that any prejudice has been caused or that proceedings violate his vested rights. The letters and documents relied upon by him, including the letter dated 30.11.2024, have been disowned by the author himself, the 4th Respondent, who explained that they were obtained under threat and coercion. Therefore, reliance on such documents is misplaced. The Court also finds that Petitioner has already been rendering services as Qazi under an existing G.O., and the recommendation for another Qazi for a distinct administrative unit cannot be construed as interference in his jurisdiction unless a final appointment order overlapping his area is issued. Further, another aspect which has to be seen is petitioner belongs to Shadnagar area, as per his own showing from the cause title which discloses that he is not a local person of Vikarabad. In Annexured-2 ie. check list for appointment of Government Khazi to the impugned proceedings, for the description ‘whether any person / persons is / are working as Govt. khazi(s) in the area in question, if so to justify the need for appointment of another Khazi – the reply is the marriages and rituals are being performed by the Khazi of Shadnagar of Mahabubnagar, but needs of local principal mohammadans the Sadar Khazi is required for Vikarabad Mandal & Municipality of Vikarabad District.’ 14. In view of the same, on instructions of the District Collector, the Tahsildar and the local police submitted their respective reports, based on which the District Collector passed the impugned proceedings holding that the 3rd respondent of Vikarabad Mandal has Qazzath certificate and he fulfils the required qualification to be appointed as Government Qazi and the more number of local principal mohammadans and masjids committee have recommended for appointment as government Sadar Qazi for Vikarabad Mandal and Municipality of Vikarabad District, so he has been recommended for appointment as Government Sadar Qazi in Vikarabad Mandal and Municipality. 15. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned proceedings, hence, is of the opinion that Writ Petition does not merit consideration. 16. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 17. The interim order dated 26.06.2024 shall automatically stand dissolved.