OU Teacher Approaches Telangana HC Against Denial of Promotion

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has issued notices to the state government, the Vice-Chancellor of Osmania University and others in a writ petition filed by Dr P. Kamalakar alleging denial of promotion for raising the matter of the V-C`s academic citations.

Dr Kamalakar, a faculty member in the department of botany at the university, contended that he was unjustly denied promotion as senior professor in September 2025 under the UGC’s Career Advancement Scheme. He alleged that the denial was not based on academic or procedural grounds but was the result of personal bias on the part of the Vice-Chancellor.

Senior counsel Prabhakar Sripada, appearing for Dr Kamalakar, submitted that his client and a few other teaching staff had questioned the Vice-Chancellor’s academic claims, specifically his assertion that he had 733 academic citations to his credit. They contended that the actual number of citations attributed to him was 587. Senior counsel also submitted that a communication was sent by some other staff to the CBI against the V-C’s claims. Hence, the promotion was denied, the counsel argued.

Court directs takedown of sleaze content on TTD chairman

The XIV Additional Chief Judge of the City Civil Court here on Tuesday directed social media platforms and digital intermediaries to immediately remove links to a sleaze video featuring TTD chairman B.R. Naidu. The court directed that such material should neither be republished nor shared in any manner.

In interim orders, the court restrained social media platforms from hosting or circulating any posts or videos containing derogatory content against B.R. Naidu.

Senior advocate P. Viswajanani, appearing for Naidu, submitted that the videos and visuals being circulated on social media were AI-generated deepfake content and defamatory in nature. She informed the court that complaints had been lodged by both Naidu and the woman shown in the videos that the material was fabricated.

It was argued that the continued circulation of these videos was causing serious damage to Naidu’s reputation and personal dignity, and that immediate judicial intervention was necessary to prevent further harm.

Plea against KK’s son quashed

The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Gadila Raghuveer Reddy seeking quashing of a criminal case registered against him by the Banjara Hills police based on a complaint of former MP K. Keshava Rao`s son K. Venkateshwar Rao.

Reddy had earlier filed a PIL before the High Court challenging GO Ms. No. 56 dated May 23, 2023, issued by the then BRS government. In the PIL, Reddy alleged that the GO was issued to regularise the land in favour of Venkateswara Rao and Vijayalakshmi, the son and daughter of Kesava Rao, in violation of applicable rules.

According to the petitioner, land measuring 1,161 square yards located at Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, in NBT Nagar was regularised at a rate of `2,500 per square yard, while another extent of 425 square yards in the same locality was regularised at `350 per square yard. The PIL is pending consideration before a division bench headed by the Chief Justice.

Subsequently, Venkateswara Rao approached the Banjara Hills police, alleging that Reddy had threatened him and demanded `3 crore to withdraw the PIL. The police registered a criminal case.

Raghuveer Reddy approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the case was fabricated and lodged only to pressurise him to withdraw the PIL.

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, who heard the petition, found no evidence supporting the petitioner’s allegations of mala fide action. The court therefore dismissed the writ petition and declined to intervene in the criminal proceedings.

Kaleshwaram Probe Based Solely on Official Records, Not Oral Testimony: Telangana A-G Tells High Court

Advocate-General A. Sudershan Reddy on Tuesday told the Telangana High Court that the Justice P.C. Ghose commission, which had examined the alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram lift irrigation scheme, had based its findings exclusively on official records and relied on documents obtained from state and Central authorities, as well as technical bodies such as the National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA) and the Central Water Commission (CWC).

The A-G clarified that commission had not recorded oral evidence nor took individual testimonies while preparing the report. He was refuting the contentions of the petitioners — former chief minister K. Chandrashekar Rao, former minister T. Harish Rao, IAS officer Smitha Sabharwal and former government adviser S.K. Joshi — that the commission report was predetermined and biased.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was in the final hearing of the batch of petitions, and the arguments have been going on since last week. The government was presenting its arguments on the second straight day on Tuesday.

The bench directed that the government to complete its arguments by 2.45 pm on Thursday. The court asked counsels for the petitioners to submit their rejoinders thereafter so that arguments from all parties can be concluded the same day. The court indicated that it intended to reserve judgment following the completion of submissions. The court asked both sides to avoid lengthy and repeated arguments.

During the proceedings on Tuesday, the A-G Sudershan Reddy defended the state’s authority to establish a commission of inquiry in matters of public importance. He referred to Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including cases involving inquiry commissions in Odisha in the 1960s and the Yeleru left canal land acquisition issue in Andhra Pradesh in the 1990s.

The A-G argued that given the scale of the Kaleshwaram project —designed to irrigate approximately 19 lakh acres and meet industrial and drinking water requirements. — the government was well within its powers to order an inquiry. He explained that although the probe was termed a “judicial inquiry” because it was headed by a retired judge, it functioned strictly under the Commissions of Inquiry Act and operated within the legal framework prescribed by the statute.

Sudershan Reddy drew attention to observations made by the NDSA, an expert committee, and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), which had identified several issues relating to the project. Among them was the release of `2,951 crore for the Medigadda barrage without approval from a Cabinet sub-committee, allegedly based on the signatures of the then chief minister and the former principal secretary, irrigation.