Telangana HC Admits Plea On ₹23-Crore Betting Fraud

HC upholds APSRTC promotion process

A division bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin dismissed writ appeals filed by a senior medical officer of APSRTC, challenging the promotion of her colleague. The bench held that the promotions and fixation of seniority were made strictly in accordance with the reservation roster and the corporation’s service regulations, leaving no scope for interference. The panel was dealing with writ appeals filed by Dr Ekambari. The appeals arose out of a common order by which a single judge dismissed writ pleas questioning the promotion of Dr Sailaja Murthy to the post of senior medical officer (specialist). The petitioner contended that despite belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (Women) category, she was unjustly deprived of promotion, as roster point No. 8 earmarked for ST (Women) in 2007 was wrongly allotted to a general category candidate instead of being carried forward to her. It was further argued that Dr Murthy lacked the requisite medical qualification, as her PG diploma was not recognised by the Medical Council of India under the Indian Medical Council Act. The petitioner also pointed to her colleague’s Merit Rating Report of 2011-12 to contend that she was unfit for specialist promotion. In response, APSRTC maintained that the promotions were made strictly in line with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, which govern eligibility and reservation criteria. It was submitted that the ST (Women) quota had already been satisfied in the cadre by another officer, Dr Suvarnamala, whose appointment was made earlier, and hence the roster point was not available for the petitioner. Further, the PG diploma in question was permissible under APSRTC’s regulations at the relevant time. Agreeing with these submissions, the bench observed that service conditions and promotional criteria of APSRTC are governed by its own regulations, not by the Medical Council of India Act. The bench held that seniority in the promoted cadre is to be determined by the order of roster points rather than seniority in the feeder cadre. Since Dr Murthy was promoted against an earlier roster point (No. 16) than Dr Ekambari (No. 25), her placement as senior was found proper. The bench also noted that the petitioner had never challenged the 2010 selection panel, which was the very basis for the promotions and seniority list, and that the attempt to dispute seniority years later was barred by delay and laches. Concluding that the promotions were effected in accordance with law, the bench refused to interfere with the Single Judge’s order and dismissed both writ appeals.

Man accused in chit scam gets bail

The Telangana High Court granted bail to a man arrested for allegedly running a chit fund scheme that defrauded nearly 2,000 people in Miryalaguda. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Kommu Ramesh. The petitioner was arrested in July after a complaint that he collected monthly contributions of Rs 1,000 for 15 months but failed to deliver the promised returns and vacated the premises. According to the prosecution, Ramesh along with other accused induced several families into joining the scheme, causing losses worth crores. Counsel for the petitioner argued that he was innocent, had been in custody for more than 75 days, that co-accused were already released on bail, and that no charge sheet had been filed despite key witnesses being examined. The judge observed that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, that substantial investigation was completed, and that no charge sheet had been filed as of date. Accordingly, the judge deemed it fit to enlarge the petitioner on conditional bail.

Notices issued in advocates’ welfare fund plea

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ordered fresh notices to Telangana Advocate Welfare Fund Committee (TAWFC) in a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana State Advocates Welfare Fund Act 1987. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice S. Chalapathi Rao was dealing with a writ petition filed by Vijay Gopal, a practising advocate, appeared party-in-person to challenge the validity of Section 12 of Telangana State Advocates Welfare Fund Act which speaks about Printing, Custody and Distribution of the Telangana Advocates’ and their Clerks’ Welfare Fund Stamp. He contended that it does not permit advocates to practice law without affixing Rs 100 stamp to Telangana Advocates welfare fund, he argued that distributing the collected welfare fund — 86% to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund and 14% to the Clerks’ Welfare Fund — was arbitrary and ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. He also sought to declare that any charity or welfare scheme of any kind cannot be forced or imposed on any citizen or advocate and collection of any donation, fee, or welfare contribution by any organisation or the State to practice any profession cannot be mandatory on any citizen under any pretext of association or welfare. During the course of hearing, the panel observed that the counsel who had earlier represented the TAWFC has since been elevated as a judge of the High Court and there is no representation. The panel accordingly, directed that fresh notice be issued to respondent.