Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court issued notices to Osmania University, Bar Council of India, and others in a PIL challenging the delayed commencement of law courses. The PIL bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by A. Bhaskar Reddy, an advocate, who complained that the authorities had failed to ensure that the academic calendar was followed and that there was no delay in admission to law courses. The petitioner said the delay in admission over the past several years was causing untold hardships and uncertainty leading to mental harassment of law aspirants. He said admission to the national law universities was done based on the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) which had concluded by June, whereas there was an inordinate delay in admission into state universities through Lawcet. The bench after perusing the material issued notices to the respondents.
Physical disability yardstick quashed
The Telangana High Court set aside a government order prescribing a higher percentage of disability of 70 per cent and above instead of 40 per cent for consideration under the preferential category in the transfer and promotion of teachers. The bench comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao disposed of a writ petition filed by Jakkarthi Ramakrishna and two others challenging Guideline 7(a) of GO Ms No. 5 issued in January 2023. The petitioner said the GO was contrary to the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The bench agreeing with the contentions of the petitioner ruled that when the Act prescribes the benchmark disability as 40 per cent, the state could not prescribe a higher disability of 70 per cent and above for extending the preferential treatment while allotting posts to local cadres. The government cannot further classify disabled persons for extending preferential treatment.
Contempt notice to M’nagar collector
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court sought a reply from the principal secretary, panchayat raj, Mahbubnagar district collector, and others for their alleged violation of court orders. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by Nune Srinivasulu and another, working as mandal revenue coordinators (MRCs). Subsequently, a government order was issued prescribing graduation as the minimum qualification for the post with an age limit of 25-35 years. This was challenged before the court. It was contended that the proposal was sent to the government for consideration of relaxation of qualification. The judge while disposing of the petition had said that the employment of the petitioners should continue as Mandal coordinators till the government took a decision. Later the order came under scrutiny of the division bench which dismissed the appeal, directing the appellants to consider the cases of respondents for engaging in appropriate posts by giving preference to the respondents as they have already worked as MRCs. The appellants were further directed to consider the cases of respondents for engaging them in any suitable post depending upon their qualification in the Swachh Bharat Mission Scheme. Considering the order passed in appeal, Justice Nanda had closed the earlier contempt case by directing the government to act upon the orders of the division bench. In the present contempt case, the petitioners alleged that the authorities had wilfully and deliberately violated the court’s order and failed to engage them in any suitable post in the Swachh Bharat scheme. The government pleader said there were no vacancies and posts would be provided based on availability. The judge after perusing the records directed the respondent authorities to file their reply by the next date of the hearing.
Contempt charge on Tumkunta civic body
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar ordered notice to be served on the Tumkunta municipality commissioner and others in a contempt case filed by Nomula Madhusudhan Reddy who alleged that the official had failed to give effect to the orders of the court. He said that in June 2023, the commissioner had addressed a letter to the Shamirpet tahsildar requesting him to conduct a survey and identify and fix the full tank level (FTL) boundary of a lake physically on the ground by fixing boundary stones and geo coordinates with a sketch map as per rules. The commissioner also requested the tahsildar to take action on the persons who are taking up the construction unauthorisedly in the FTL area. The petitioner had alleged that Tahsildar had neither conducted a survey nor had taken action against the unauthorised construction. The court considering the submission had directed the tahsildar to act upon the letter conduct a survey file a report of the same and further directed the commissioner to see that no further construction is made on the land. The petitioner in the contempt case alleged that the commissioner had wilfully disobeyed the orders of the court.
