Can Visually Affected Be Made APPs: Telangana HC

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a challenge to the state’s exclusion of visually impaired candidates from recruitment to the post of assistant public prosecutor (APP). The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ plea filed by Koppula Sravan Kumar questioning the validity of Rule 4(a) of the Telangana Prosecution Rules and Para 11(D)(ii) of Recruitment Notification dated August 15. The petitioner contended that the express exclusion of visually impaired and low-vision candidates was contrary to the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. He relied on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court striking down a similar exclusion under the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, wherein the court observed that if a visually impaired person with a law degree was eligible for judicial service, they could not be declared unsuitable for the post of assistant public prosecutor. The petitioner sought a similar direction to participate in the ongoing APP recruitment. The panel earlier passed an interim direction permitting the petitioner to submit his application pending adjudication. On Monday, the panel directed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to file its response.

DME to vet student’s plea fof extension

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the Director of Medical Education (DME) to consider a BDS graduate’s request for permission to complete 161 days of pending internship beyond the nine-year limit fixed by the Dental Council of India (DCI). The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Syeda Nayeem Khatija Razvi. The petitioner sought recognition of her remaining internship period citing pregnancy-related complications, Covid-19 disruptions, and her firstborn child’s medical condition as the reasons for her inability to complete the training within time. The petitioner relied on a no objection/internship extension letter issued by Sri Balaji Dental College, Moinabad, permitting her to finish the remaining internship days despite the lapse of the nine-year window. Opposing the plea, the government and university authorities contended that the petitioner had not submitted any representation to the competent authority and therefore could not allege inaction. Tjudge directed the petitioner to approach the DME with a formal representation and instructed the authority to consider her request in accordance with law, duly taking into account the no-objection letter issued by her institution.

Costs imposed on Housing board

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court slammed the Telangana Housing Board for years of inaction and imposed costs of `25,000 while dismissing its appeal over registration of plot of 48.33 square yards. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar was hearing a writ appeal filed by the Housing Board against an order passed by the single judge in a writ plea filed by T. Bhajrang. The writ petitioner originally sought a mandamus directing the government and the Housing Board to alienate and register 48.33 sq yards of land. A 2008 order in an earlier round of litigation already directed the board to transfer the land upon payment of market value and related charges. The Housing Board argued that the payment made by the petitioner in January 2009 was beyond the time stipulated by the court. The petitioner relied on the board’s letter of December 2008 extending the deadline by one month, after which the board received and appropriated the amount without objection. The panel noted that even in contempt proceedings in 2009, the board was directed to complete the registration, yet no steps were taken, leading to the petition in 2010 and the single judge’s order in 2025. Speaking for the panel, Justice Bhattacharya observed that the board’s conduct reflected “complete dereliction of duty” despite having retained the petitioner’s money for over a decade. Finding the appeal devoid of merit and intended only to prolong the dispute, the panel dismissed it with costs to be paid counsel to the writ petitioner within two weeks.

HC: Equal treatment for ST applicants

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed TGGenco and state authorities to ensure equal treatment to a group of Scheduled Tribe community applicants seeking allocation of pond ash and wet bottom ash from KTPS, on par with the 79 firms approved for 2025–26. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Guguloth Rambabu and others, who complained that their applications for extension of earlier ash-lifting permissions at `50 per metric tonne up to March 31, 2025, were not considered despite prior court directions. The petitioners alleged that while their requests were pending, TGGenco issued an expression of interest for sale of ash from KTPS Stages V, VI and VII and later approved 79 firms on October 30 without addressing their representations. The Advocate General, appearing for the state, submitted that the government’s policy mandated monetisation of ash disposal through a transparent bidding process, but assured the court that the petitioners would be treated on par with the approved firms. The judge directed the authorities to facilitate ash lifting by the petitioners without discrimination and closed the writ petition.