Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Monday paved the way for recruitment of police constables by allowing the state government and the State Level Police Recruitment Board to complete the process. It said the appointments would be subjected to the final outcome of the petition. A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Shameem Akhter was hearing a PIL by one Srinivas Goud, who contended that there were irregularities in the recruitment process.
The government assured the court that it would not issue appointment letters to 188 Home Guards who had secured less than 80 marks in the open category. The bench asked Advocate-General K. Ramakrishna Reddy to place the district-wise list of marks in the test, the ranks and cut-off marks for reserved categories. The AG told the court that there was a quota for Home Guards; as part of their quota they were accommodated in the open category.
The bench said it would not proper to accommodate Home Guards who have secured 63 marks in the general category where the cut-off mark was 80. Mr G. Vidyasagar, senior counsel, appearing for the board said that the recruitment was undertaken in accordance with rules and procedure. Mr Sarasani Satyam Reddy, senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, said there was utter confusion in allocation of ranks and that the board had failed to follow procedure in determining the ranks. The bench directed the AG to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks.
No hike in market value:
The state government told the Hyderabad High Court that it has taken a policy decision not to revise the market value of the land. Mr K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate-General, said the commissioner and inspector-general of stamps and registration department had told the government that the real estate market had picked up and the growth rate. He placed a memo issued by the special chief secretary of revenue department before a division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Shameem Akhter.
The bench was dealing with a public interest litigation filed by Congress former MLA M. Kodanda Reddy challenging the inaction of the respondents in revising and updating the market value of land in rural areas. According to the memo, the commissioner of registrations stated that there was no reason to revise the market values upwards in 2014 and 2015, as they could have depressed growth. Following demonetisation, the revenues from registration had fallen.
The commissioner said, “it is predicted that real estate values may rationalise... therefore, it may not be appropriate to revise market values at this juncture.” The court then asked Mr Kodanda Reddy to file any objection on the memo and adjourned the case to next week.
HC admits triple talaq plea:
The Hyderabad High Court on Monday admitted writ petitions by city residents Mehreen Noor and Syeda Hina Fathima who had challenged the ‘triple talaq’ pronounced by their husbands from the US over WhatsApp, the social media platform. Justice A. Ramalingeswara Rao issued notices to their husbands, Osman Qureshi and Fayazuddin Qureshi. The judge also issued notices to the Centre, the state government and the TS Wakf Board, asking them to explain steps being taken to protect the women from illegal means of divorce.
Mr M.A. Mukheed, counsel for the petitioners, said the Supreme Court and various High Courts had ruled that the pronouncing talaq unilaterally without counselling and without giving any reasons was bad in law and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. He urged the court to direct the state and the Centre to frame guidelines and pass standard orders to prevent the illegal methods while pronouncing of divorce. He sought a direction to the Wakf Board to prevent qazis from issuing divorce certificates in cases where talaq is granted by illegal means over social media, internet and telephone or mobilephone.
The Wakf Board counsel told the court that the Centre had sought recommendations from the Law Commission of India with regard to triple talaq. To this, Justice Ramalingeswara Rao said it would not be proper for the court to grant any order. The case was adjourned for four weeks. The court said there were civil remedies with regard to the eviction of the petitioners.
