Hyderabad: A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice S.V. Bhatt of the Hyderabad High Court on Thursday ruled that the written examination for the posts of district judges and junior civil judges shall go on as per schedule.
The bench was passing an ad interim order on a plea seeking stay of recruitment of district judges and junior civil judges and also recruitment by transfer and promotion of judicial officers after formation of Telangana state.
The High Court has issued a notification for conducting written test for six posts of district judges under direct recruitment and two posts of district judges by promotion to be held on June 28. The written test for 34 posts of junior civil judges in the AP state judicial service will be held on July 12.
Senior counsel S. Satyam Reddy moved a miscellaneous application before the bench seeking stay of recruitment to the above posts as the notification was issued in 2015 after formation of Telangana state.
Telangana advocate general K. Ramakrishna Reddy submitted that the state government wants the posts to be filled according to the rules framed for the state of Telangana and not as per rules applicable to Andhra Pradesh.
After hearing the case, the bench while taking into consideration the interim order passed by the Court earlier, in which it has ruled that the recruitment process may go on as per schedule, granted an ad interim order by directing the registry not to finalise the appointment process until further orders.
The bench directed that all the answer scripts be kept in sealed envelopes and evaluation should not be done and results will not be declared. The bench posted the matter to July 21 for further hearing.
HC asked to direct Centre on Sec. 5, 8
Seemandhra Gazetted Officers Association represented by its president K.V. Krishnaiah on Thursday moved a PIL before the Hyderabad High Court to declare the action of the Union Home Ministry in not implementing Sections 5 and 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014 in Common Capital-Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner submitted that according to the AP Reorganisation Act, Hyderabad, treated as the common capital for the state of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh for a period not exceeding 10 years and verbatim under Section 5 is amply clear that Hyderabad is a common capital and not tenant or else accommodative in nature for the state of AP.
The relevant section stipulates that on and from the appointed day, Hyderabad in the existing state of AP, shall be the common capital of Telangana and AP for such period not exceeding 10 years and after expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (1), Hyderabad shall be the capital of Telangana and there shall be a new capital for AP.
He contended that as per the proviso till shifting of the capital within 10 years AP shall have equal capacity of governance in the capital city area together with the government of Telangana.
He said that the domain of the state includes the area of the capital city and so till formation of the new capital it is well construed as per Section 5 that Hyderabad is the capital city of Andhra Pradesh in the form of sharing with Telangana.
He submitted that to protect the interest and fundamental rights of the residents of Hyderabad, the law makers have introduced Section 8 in the Act 2014 and as per the Section it is the responsibility of the Governor to protect residents of the common capital of Hyderabad.
He urged the court to direct the Centre to implement both Sections of the Act in the common capital in the interest of safety and security of the people of both the states.
Orders on Elvis’ plea reserved
Justice B. Siva Shankar Rao of the Hyderabad High Court on Thursday reserved his orders to Monday on the petition by TRS MLA, Elvis Stephenson seeking the judge to recuses from the hearing of quash petition moved by Jerusalem Mathaiah, accused in the ‘cash for vote’ scam.
The judge was hearing the arguments on the second day in a miscellaneous application moved by the TRS MLA Stephenson seeking the judge to recuses from the hearing of quash petition.
Continuing the arguments Gandra Mohan Rao, counsel appearing for Stephenson said credibility in the functioning of the justice delivery system and the reasonable perception of the affected parties are relevant considerations to ensure the continuance of public confidence in the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary.
When a party to the petition has apprehensions that the judgment is likely to be biased, it would be proper for the bench to recuses from the hearing.
Siddhartha Luthra, senior counsel appearing for Mathaiah refuted the contention of Stephenson and said that it is the psychological game of the applicant (Stephenson) to seek recusal of the judge.
Recalling the observations of the Supreme Court that calculated psychological offensive and mind games adopted to seek recusal of judges need to be strongly repulsed in Subrata Roy Sahara versus Union of India case, he said that the Apex Court has held that it is the duty of the Court to hear and decide the matter allocated to it as per roaster.
While concluding the hearing the judge said that if the ACB desires it can file a reply on counter affidavit filed by Mathaiah opposing the application of Stephenson and posted the case for orders on Monday.
