Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Monday found that the Hyderabad Cric-ket Association (HCA) had not been implementing the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee in their true spirit.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice K. Vijaya Lakshmi, after perusing the report submitted by the Administrators Committee headed by Justice Anil R. Dave, with regard to the implementation of the recommendations, pointed out that there were discrepancies in the implementation.
The bench also felt that there was a need for the HCA to seek assistance and support from the BCCI for full-fledged implementation of the recommendations.
In 2017, the Hyderabad HC constituted the Adm-inistrators Committee comprising Justice Anil R. Dave, a former Supreme Court judge, and Justice G.V. Seethapathy, a former High Court judge, in view of the dispute between two committees, each claiming administrative rights over the HCA and the conduction of IPL matches.
The committee was constituted in response to a PIL filed by advocate M. Govinda Reddy seeking implementation of the recommendations of the Lodha Committee. In its preliminary report to the court, the Administrators Committee stated that there was prima facie evidence to support the allegations of misuse of HCA funds by its managing committee.
Opinion sought on weightage
The Hyderabad High Court on Monday asked the Telangana state government to spell out its stand on the allocation of weightage marks to contract and outsourced employees during the appointment of staff nurses, civil assistant surgeons and engineers for TS Transco.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranga-nathan and Justice K. Vijaya Lakshmi dealt with a batch of petitions challenging the action of the state government in giving weightage marks to contract and outsourced employees during the recruitment process.
The bench said that the matter had been referred to it by a judge after the announcement of contradictory decisions by two benches of the court. One bench said that the allocation of weightage marks was justified, while the other said that weightage was only to be considered when two candidates secured the same marks in the written test.
Sarasani Satyam Reddy, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the law did not permit for weightage marks to be awarded to contract and outsourced employees.
He said with the state government’s decision to give special preference to such employees hampered the chances of direct candidates.
Advocate General D. Prakash Reddy submitted that the state government had the power to give weightage marks to candidates who had been serving in various departments for several years by amending the recruitment rules.
He added that the written test was a preliminary stage in the recruitment process and that staying the process would result in a delay in the filling of vacant posts.
