HC Reserves Verdict in TGPSC BTech Eligibility Row

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court reserved its verdict on an appeal filed by the Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC) challenging an order of a single judge that set aside the rejection of the candidature of BTech (Computer Science) graduates for the posts of mandal planning and statistical officer/assistant statistical officer. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, was dealing with a writ appeal in relation to the eligibility for the posts. The dispute originated from a 2018 notification where the TGPSC rejected the candidature of several applicants on the ground that their study of 'Probability and Statistics' for a single semester did not meet the requirement of studying the subject for a full "academic year". In earlier writ proceedings, the single judge ruled in favour of the candidates, observing that studying the subject as a core component of a BTech course satisfies the educational criteria.

Counsel for the appellant, TGPSC, contended that the recruitment process was conducted in a transparent manner and in strict compliance with the governing rules and regulations. He further argued that the qualifications explicitly require candidates to have studied statistics as a subject for one year, two years or all three years of the degree course, and that the candidates failed to satisfy this criterion. Counsel for candidates, citing various Supreme Court judgments contended that the “rules of the game” could not be altered midway through the recruitment process by introducing additional eligibility criteria through a memo after the notification was issued and the examination conducted. He further contended that candidates were permitted to appear for the written examination held on the August 3, 2018, and qualified in both papers and were thereafter wrongly disqualified. After hearing arguments at length, the panel reserved its orders.

No bar on BJP print ads: HC

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court set aside proceedings cancelling the permission earlier granted for publication of election advertisements in print media, holding that the impugned proceedings were bereft of reasons and not supported by the statutory provision relied upon. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by the BJP (Telangana state unit). The writ petition challenged proceedings dated February 9 issued by the commissioner and director of municipal administration, cancelling earlier certification granted on February 8 for publication of advertisements in Telugu and English print media in the backdrop of the municipal election schedule. The cancellation was based on a press note issued by the Telangana State Election Commission on February 9 referring to Section 209 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Section 209 stipulates that no person shall convene or address any public meeting or procession in connection with an election; display election matter by means of cinematography, television or similar apparatus; or propagate election matter by organising musical concerts, theatrical performances or other entertainment in any polling area during the 48 hours prior to the conclusion of poll.

The provision further prescribes punishment up to two years’ imprisonment or fine for contravention and defines “election matter” as any matter intended or calculated to influence or affect the result of an election. The petitioner contended that the press note pertained to campaigning during the silence period and did not extend to print media advertisements already certified. It was further pointed out that another national political party published advertisements in print media on February 10. On perusal of the record, the judge noted that certification for print media was granted on February 8 and that the press note did not specifically prohibit print media or paid media advertisements. Holding that Section 209 did not cover print media in the manner sought to be applied and that the cancellation proceedings were unsustainable, the judge accordingly set aside the proceedings and disposed of the petition.

Shivaratri fete by panel cleared

Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court permitted a devotees committee to conduct the ensuing Maha Shivaratri celebrations at Sri Ranganatha Kashi Vishweshwara Temple, Kashibugga, Warangal, in coordination with the executive officer of the temple. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Sri Kashi Vishweshwara Ranganatha Alaya Abhivrudhi Committee, wherein it was contended that the petitioner-committee had been conducting the festival celebrations for nearly a decade and that, till date, no Trust Board was constituted by the endowments department to administer the affairs of the temple. It was further contended that the subject temple is a 1000-year-old ancient and historically significant shrine dating back to the Kakatiya dynasty, and that the temple was developed by the devotees of the locality under the spiritual guidance of the committee. It was claimed that the committee constituted by the petitioner managed the day-to-day affairs of the temple, including religious rituals, maintenance, and the conduct of traditional functions and festivals, for the past three decades, with contributions and funds raised by the devotees themselves.

The petitioner also brought to the notice of the court that the endowments authorities issued a notification dated October 21, 2025, calling for applications to constitute a Trust Board, which was subsequently suspended pursuant to the directions of the High Court. The immediate grievance in the present writ petition was that the executive officer was allegedly interfering with the celebrations organised by the petitioner-committee for the ensuing Maha Shivaratri festival scheduled on February 15, and that despite representations submitted to the competent authorities, no orders were passed thereon. Opposing the writ petition, the government pleader along with counsel appearing for the temple authorities submitted that the subject temple falls under the administrative control of the endowments department, and that an executive officer was appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. It was contended that the committee had no locus standi to manage the affairs of the temple or to question the actions of the executive officer. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, and particularly noting that the petitioner-committee conducted the Maha Shivaratri celebrations for the past several years and that no Trust Board was appointed by the endowments authorities, Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty permitted the petitioner-committee to conduct the Maha Shivaratri celebrations for the year 2026, strictly in coordination with the executive officer.

Cross-gender spa ban in HC

Justice E.V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging a 2010 notification issued by the Hyderabad Police that prohibits cross-gender massage and spa therapies. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Neelam Manikanta, proprietor of V3 Wellness Beauty Saloon and Spa in Ranga Reddy district. He contended that the notification issued on June 30, 2010, imposed a blanket ban on employing female therapists for male customers and vice versa, despite the absence of any legal provision under the Hyderabad City Police Act or other applicable laws to regulate or prohibit legitimate spa and wellness centres. The petitioner further contended that his establishment was a professionally managed therapeutic wellness centre with no complaints or illegal activities, and followed strict safeguards to prevent misconduct. He argued that the notification issued to curb illegal massage centres unfairly targets lawful businesses and affects the livelihood of trained therapists, thereby violating Articles of the Constitution. Referring to recent police raids on similar establishments, the petitioner claimed his business was forced to shut down and sought suspension and quashing of the notification pending disposal of the writ petition. The judge directed the respondents to get instructions in the matter.