Compassionate Appointment Plea Against Company Not Maintainable: Telangana HC

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court held that the relief of compassionate appointment cannot be claimed against a company. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, was dealing with a writ appeal filed by VST Industries Limited, which challenged the order passed by the single judge who directed VST to consider the representation made by certain workmen seeking appointment of their dependents on compassionate grounds. The single judge observed that, though the company discontinued such appointments in 2005, its own response admitted that exceptions were made in a few cases after 2016. In appeal, senior counsel Sunil Ganu, appearing for VST Industries inter alia contended that it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it does not perform any public function. It was further argued that there was neither a subsisting settlement nor any policy in force enabling the workmen or their dependants to claim compassionate appointment, and that the petitioners approached the court nearly ten years after making the alleged representation. The respondents maintained that the order of the single judge required only consideration of their long-pending representation and did not amount to granting employment directly. After hearing both sides, the panel observed that the writ plea itself was not maintainable against the appellant as it is not “State” within the meaning of Article 12, and that no legal or contractual right was shown to sustain a claim for compassionate appointment. Referring to several Supreme Court rulings, the panel noted that the direction of the single judge was unsustainable. The panel set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ appeal.

2. HC orders demolition of illegal structure in Rasoolpally

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court directed the demolition of an illegal construction at Rasoolpally village, noting prolonged inaction by local authorities despite official findings of irregularity. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Kanneboina Ailaiah and his son Kanneboina Purnachand, who complained that one Maddela Kumaraswamy encroached upon their land and raised a structure without obtaining permission. The petitioners contended that, though they submitted several representations since 2018, the panchayat authorities failed to take action, and that permission was later granted irregularly in 2021. It was stated that an enquiry conducted by the district panchayat officer confirmed that the building permission was issued in violation of rules, without supporting documents or prior land conversion. The officer cancelled the permission and directed demolition of the structure, yet the panchayat secretary failed to implement the order. Justice Madhavi Devi observed that the authorities were duty-bound to enforce their own directions and found the explanation for the delay inaction to be unjustified. The judge directed the mandal surveyor to fix property boundaries within one month and ordered the panchayat secretary to carry out the demolition with police assistance, if required.

3. State can’t nullify reservation-based seniority: HC

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court ruled that once the state exercised its authority to provide reservation with consequential seniority, it could not nullify those promotions through executive orders. The judge quashed two government memos that sought to review promotions granted to officers from the Scheduled Tribe community in the Secretariat, ruling that the state cannot disturb settled seniority protected under the Constitution. The judge allowed a batch of writ pleas filed by S. Laxmi Bai and three others, all ST community employees, and restored their promotions and consequential seniority with full benefits. The petitioners, who were promoted to posts such as joint secretary and section officer, contended that the government memos amounted to reviving the abolished ‘catch-up rule’ and undermining reservation in promotions under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution. They argued that Telangana had completed the constitutional exercise mandated by the Supreme Court, and any further review was illegal. The judge criticised the state for rejecting the petitioners’ representations without assigning reasons, terming the action arbitrary and in violation of the Constitution.

4. HC upholds police custody of 2 scribes

Justice Tirumala Devi Eada of the Telangana High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed by two scribes seeking the quashing of the order granting their police custody for three days in a case relating to the circulation of an objectionable video against Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Revathi Pogadadabnda and Tanvi Yadav. The petitioners, who run a YouTube news channel, were arrested by the Hyderabad cybercrimes police in March for uploading a video showing a farmer using abusive language against the Chief Minister. They were subsequently granted bail by the trial court, which had earlier rejected the police’s request for custodial interrogation. The state challenged that order before the Sessions Court, which allowed three days’ police custody, prompting the present challenge before the High Court. The petitioners contended that the revisional court’s order was illegal and contrary to law, as the FIR was registered in March, and the request for police custody was made seven months later, without new grounds. They argued that all electronic devices were seized and that they were regularly attending the police station concerned twice a week in compliance with bail conditions. It was argued that there was no justification for further custodial interrogation. The additional public prosecutor opposed the quash and contended that the petition for custody was filed within 40 days from the date of registration of the FIR, as permitted under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and that further custody was necessary to seize additional electronic devices containing objectionable videos circulated online. He maintained that compliance with bail conditions did not preclude custodial interrogation where further evidence was to be recovered. After examining the record, the judge found that the revisional court’s order did not suffer from any infirmity. The judge noted that the offences alleged were serious, involving the telecast and online circulation of abusive content intended to provoke discord, and that recovery of remaining devices justified limited police custody. The judge accordingly upheld the Sessions Court’s decision. The criminal petition was dismissed, with the judge observing that the revisional order granting police custody was legally sustainable.