Hyderabad: The vacation panel of the Telangana High Court came to the rescue of a tenant, whose premises under occupation were sought to be vacated under the provisions of the Sarfaesi Act. On an order of the magistrate, in exercise of the power under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Sarfaesi) Act, the advocate commissioner issued a notice requiring a tenant in occupation to vacate the premises at Manbhum Jade Towers, Somajiguda. The panel, comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, was dealing with a writ plea filed by NJ India Invest Private Limited. It was the case of the petitioner that it had rented the flat and the advocate commissioner issued an eviction notice without making the petitioner a party to the proceedings. He contended that issuing such a notice without making the petitioner tenant a party to the impugned proceedings was illegal and arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice. The panel after perusing the records, directed to maintain the status quo.
Local candidates:TREIRB plea rejected
Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court rejected the plea of the Telangana Residential Educational Institution Recruitment Board (TREIRB) that the state government has taken a policy decision to provide 100 per cent reservation to local candidates from Telangana state, and that there is no place for considering non- local candidates in the recruitment process. The judge accordingly set aside the action of the board in not considering the case of the petitioners for appointment to the posts of degree college lecturers in economics and history, stating that it was highly arbitrary and unreasonable. This court was of the considered view that the petitioners were entitled for appointment to their respective posts. The judge was dealing with writ petitions filed by Kandula Narmada and Kavya Sanjaya, who appeared for the selection process pursuant to notifications issued in 2018. They pointed out that thought they were not entitled to be considered as local candidates in respect of the zones specified in pursuance of the Presidential Order 1975, they are entitled to be considered under the non-local category in the unreserved post in terms of para No. 8 of the Presidential order. Senior counsel G. Vidya Sagar pointing to the case of the claimant to the post of lecturer in history said that the petitioner, ranked No. 2 in the merit list, was eligible to be considered for the two unreserved vacancies out of the eight notified. As such, the recruitment authorities must follow the notification and not change the recruitment rules. He specifically pointed out that neither the notification nor the government order provided that the reservation for the post of lecturers of women’s degree colleges was confined only to women candidates from Telangana state. In similar circumstances, the judge was also dealing with the case of a candidate for the post of lecturer in economics. Reading the concerned government orders the judge said that the orders did not provide for a cent percent local reservation. He referred to the regulations under the presidential orders which he said “clearly states that during the direct recruitment to any local cadre, there shall be at least one post left unreserved. As such, the respondent board ought to have filled up the said posts in accordance with government order”. The judge accordingly allowed both the writ petitions and directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment as lectures in history and economics.
