Telugu Varsity Staff Regularisation Under Review

Hyderabad: Senior IAS Officer Yogitha Rana on Wednesday personally assured the High Court that regularisation of staff of the Telugu University is under active consideration. The senior IAS officer was present in court in a contempt case alleging that the authorities had wilfully failed to regularise the services of a class of employees despite directions to do so by the High Court. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a contempt case initiated by office subordinates of Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University alleging wilful disobedience of its order passed in 2020. The petitioners alleged that five years have elapsed since the order was passed directing them to regularise the services of the petitioners on a one-time basis from the date each of them completed 10 years of service on daily wages, without entitlement to monetary arrears. However, that order was not complied with.

The petitioners further contended that the very same order had been implemented in respect of similarly placed employees in connected matters. However, the petitioners continued to be denied the benefit of regularisation. When the matter was taken up today, Yogitha Rana, IAS, principal secretary of higher education, appeared in person before the Court. It was pointed out that the concerned officer had processed the file and that the file was presently pending before the competent authority. Counsel further informed the Court that the finance department had gathered requisite information from various departments and placed the contents on record. Taking note of the submissions, the panel observed that the writ order passed earlier had attained finality, particularly after the dismissal of the special leave petition before the Supreme Court, and that continued delay in implementation could not be justified indefinitely. The Court, as last indulgence, granted three weeks’ time to the respondents to file a counter and to demonstrate compliance. The panel adjourned the matter for further hearing.

Maheshwara Medical College moves for enhancement of PG seats

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition filed by Maheshwara Medical College and Hospital, Patancheru challenging the rejection of its request for full enhancement of postgraduate (MD/MS) seats for the academic year 2025-26. The judge was dealing with a writ plea challenging the action of the ministry of health and family welfare (MoHFW) rejecting its second appeal under the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act, thereby upholding the decision of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB). It was contended that while MARB denied full enhancement of seats on the ground of alleged “inflated clinical data,” it simultaneously granted a partial increase. The college contended that the same clinical and faculty data relied upon to grant partial approval was rejected to deny full statutory entitlement, rendering the impugned order internally inconsistent and in violation of constitutional guarantees. The institution further contended that it has no deficiencies in infrastructure or faculty and operates a hospital with over 905 beds, maintains faculty attendance exceeding 95 per cent, duly verified through the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS). It further argued that under prevailing PG regulations, seat entitlement is primarily determined by faculty strength and teaching units, not variable clinical statistics

. The petitioner alleged that no meaningful personal hearing was granted and the second appellate hearing was confined to a brief virtual interaction of merely 2-3 minutes per department, rendering the process mechanical and illusory. The petitioners sought a direction to undertake a de novo consideration of their case after granting a reasonable opportunity of physical hearing. Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that time-bound NEET-PG counselling for 2025-26 would conclude soon and if the decision is not taken at the earliest, the final relief would be illusory. After hearing preliminary submissions, the judge posted the matter for instructions.

GNIT certificate row in HC

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to Guru Nanak Institutions of Technology (GNIT) in a writ petition filed by 35 engineering students questioning withholding of original certificates to compel recovery of fees. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Narayanadas Sai Vivek and 34 others. The petitioners pointed out that GNIT unlawfully retained vital academic documents, including SSC and Intermediate certificates, semester-wise marks memos, degree certificates, transfer certificates and bonafide certificates. It was argued that such retention gravely impaired their ability to pursue higher education, seek employment and appear for competitive examinations. It was further contended that the action of the institution was in clear violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018, as well as relevant circulars issued by AICTE and JNTU Hyderabad. Emphasising that the students have been made to suffer for a prolonged period, counsel for the petitioners Narayanadas Sai Vivek sought immediate release of the original certificates. The judge, after hearing preliminary submissions, ordered notice and posted the matter for further hearing.

HC rejects custody habeas petition

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by a father seeking production and custody of his minor son. The panel was dealing with a plea filed by Abdul Raheem Uddin, who alleged that the mother was illegally detaining his eight-year-old son, Sheikh Tamim Uddin Thani, denying access and communication, and disobeying a visitation order passed in his favour by the Family Court. He contended that such continued withholding of custody amounted to unlawful detention warranting habeas corpus relief. On the contrary, the state argued that the petitioner was, in effect, seeking implementation of a Family Court order through a writ of habeas corpus, which was impermissible. He further contended that the petitioner had not even approached the concerned police authorities with a complaint, and that disputed custody issues could not be agitated in a habeas corpus petition before a constitutional court. Speaking for the Bench, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed that the filing of the habeas corpus petition was based on a wholly misconceived understanding of the remedy. The Court held that even on a perspicacious perusal of the petition, the plea was not maintainable, particularly when the petitioner already had recourse to appropriate remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act and before the Family Court.