Exclusion Of Sepak Takraw From Sports Quota Challenged

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ plea filed by a state-level sepak takraw player, seeking MBBS/BDS admission under the sports quota for the academic year 2025-26. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin dealt with a writ plea filed by P. Sai Harshitha contending that while sepak takraw players are eligible for sports quota seats in engineering, pharmacy and agriculture courses, the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS) did not extend similar benefits in medical admissions. She contended that this omission was discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of the Constitution, especially since she had secured a state rank of 5440 in NEET. She contended that the state had discretionary powers to accommodate her under the sports quota even in the absence of specific provisions and denying her such an opportunity while granting it to players of the same sport in other professional streams was unjust and against the principles of natural justice. The panel noted that, under the existing government order, only the state government could decide on including a sport in the 0.5 per cent sports quota for medical admissions and that registration for NEET counselling for 2025-26 had closed. Disposing of the plea, the panel directed the respondent authorities to consider the player's representation within three weeks. The panel also clarified that if sepak takraw was included in the medical sports quota in the future, the petitioner would be eligible to compete for such seats in subsequent years.

2. HC stays order on seniority revision of constables

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday stayed an order of a single judge, which struck down a merit-based revision of the seniority list of absorbed APSP constables in the prohibition & excise department. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with an appeal filed by Gonuru Srinivas. It is the case of the appellant that earlier a writ petition was filed by other constables challenging an order of the district prohibition and excise department which directed that the seniority of absorbed APSP constables originally calculated on the basis of date of joining and age be re-fixed on merit from original APSP battalion recruitments. It was contended in the writ petition that this decision altered the ranking of several constables and led to the promotion of some over others. The affected ones challenged the move, arguing that there was never a common merit list across battalions and that promotions historically followed Rules 33 to 38 of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, which prioritise date of joining and age. The single judge allowed the plea and held that the respondents lacked authority to direct district-level officers to re-fix seniority based on “merit” from original APSP battalion recruitments, especially when no such merit list was available and prior seniority was settled based on date of joining and age as per the rules. The single judge also observed that the petitioners, originally APSP constables deputed to the excise department in 1995 and absorbed in 2009, were promoted earlier under the valid seniority list and the attempt of the commissioner to unsettle it violated both procedure and principles of natural justice. The single judge quashing the impugned seniority proceedings directed that the petitioners be considered for promotion to head constables strictly as per the earlier age-based seniority list. The appellant argued that the order of a single judge was contrary to the settled principles of law and circumstances. The panel accordingly admitted the matter for hearing and directed that the matter be tagged along with similar pending appeals.

3. Daily wage employee seeks wage parity

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the denial of the minimum time scale of pay to a government daily wage worker despite allegedly performing the same duties as regular employees. The judge is hearing a writ plea filed by Pillala Rahul, working at the Government TW Boys Hostel, Suryapet. The petitioner would contend that the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of `19,000 per month plus dearness allowance already granted to similarly placed colleagues pursuant to earlier High Court orders was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Supreme Court precedents. The petitioner contended that the benefit was denied solely because he had not obtained a court order like his colleagues, despite his considerable length of service and identical responsibilities. The government pleader sought time to obtain instructions. The judge posted the matter to August 18.

4. Medicare Warangal moves HC for seats

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court entertained a writ plea challenging the action of the National Medical Commission’s (NMC) Undergraduate Medical Education Board (UGMEB) in refusing renewal of permission for 150 MBBS seats for the 2025-26 academic year to a private institute. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Medicare Educational Trust and Father Colombo Institute of Medical Sciences, Warangal. The petitioner was seeking to set aside the order and a direction to the NMC to grant renewal. The NMC cited the registration of an FIR for alleged criminal conspiracy and corruption, along with other “major deficiencies,” as the basis for denial. It was contended that the FIR was registered against the trustee member and not the college, and therefore, the denial of permission was arbitrary. The respondents contended that a showcause notice was issued, and a personal hearing was granted before passing the order. The petitioner argued that the decision was arbitrary, illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice, and infringed fundamental rights. The respondents sought time for instructions on the matter.