Hyderabad: Expressing displeasure at the governments of AP and Telangana states for leaving the employees to their fate and not paying their salaries, the Hyderabad High Court on Wednesday directed both the governments to ensure employees working in Milk Products Factory at Lalapet and AP Dairy Development Federation get paid. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao was dealing with two petitions by the APDDF seeking to declare GO Ms No. 8 issued on May 6, 2016b transferring its assets to TS as illegal, and another petition by 47 employees of the APDDF seeking to declare the action of the TS government in allocating them to AP without bifurcation of the corporation as illegal.
The bench pointed out that it was not proper that the two governments were forcing the employees to suffer due to the disputes arising between the states with regard to division of common institution between them. TS advocate-general K. Ramakrishna Reddy told the court that of the 49 employees working in the APDDF headquarters, 34 were allocated to the TS and were being paid. He submitted that they are prepared to take back five employees of the Milk Products Factory who have been already relieved and they would also be paid salaries.
While considering the arguments of Telangana, the bench directed the AP government to pay salaries to remaining 10 employees. AP advocate-general D. Srinivas submitted that both the governments were awaiting clarification from the Centre with regard to distribution of assets of the corporation between the two states. In the meantime, TS has relieved the employees, he said. When the bench asked how the TS government could take such a decision unilaterally, Mr Reddy said that after taking consideration of domicile status and options of the employees’ government issued relieving orders.
The Hyderabad High Court has ruled that Eamcet is only a competitive examination and authorities cannot define it as qualifying examination and directed the authorities to treat Intermediate as a qualifying exam. A division bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Anis was granting the interim order in a petition by R. Josthna of Nellore district in AP seeking to declare the action of the authorities in defining Eamcet as a qualifying exam in GO No. 111 dated September 3, 2015 as illegal.
The bench found fault with the authorities of AP medical, health and family welfare department for giving a wrong interpretation to the expression ‘qualifying examination’ for the purpose of granting admission under the one per cent quota for NCC candidates seeking MBBS seats. The GO was intended to give priority to NCC cadets who have obtained C, B & A certificates prior to appearing for Eamcet / Common Entrance Test.
The petitioner contended that the interpretation would have adverse effect on scores of students like her. After perusing the GO, the bench concluded that the authorities have committed an error in defining Eamcet as the qualifying examination in their GO. The bench reminded that the Clause 13 of Rule(2) of AP Common Entrance Test for entry into Engineering, Pharmacy, Agriculture, Medical, Dental and Pharm. D course Rules-2011 clearly says that passing of 10+2 exam conducted by AP Intermediate Board is the qualifying exam. The bench noted that “unfortunately, the AP’s GO 111 contains a wrong reference making Eamcet as the qualifying examination. The GO cannot interpret the expression Qualifying Exam as Competitive Exam.”
HC Stays excise move to allow firm sell liquor:
The Hyderabad High Court has stayed the move of the TS excise department to grant licences to four outlets of Spencer Group to sell liquor. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao was dealing with a petition by S. Dhananjay Reddy and six other retail wine dealers of the city challenging a circular issued by the TS excise commissioner on July 20, 2016 directing the deputy commissioner of prohibition & excise of Ranga Reddy district to grant licence to Spencer Retail Ltd to run the four retail outlets.
The petitioners contended that though there was no provision under the Telangana Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules 2012 to grant license without notification, the commissioner issued the circular. They said that the commissioner was more concerned with revenue to the government and not the business of the petitioners and his action was not legal and the same is arbitrary and contrary to the rules. While granting interim stay, the judge issued notices to respondents and adjourned the case.
