Telangana HC Rejects Pleas Against MBBS Local Quota Rule

Hyderabad: A division bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, on Thursday dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the government order (GO) 33 dated July 19, 2024, which amended Rule 3(a) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017. The amendment prescribed four consecutive academic years of study or residence in Telangana as the basis for local candidature for admission under the competent authority quota. The bench was hearing a batch of writ pleas filed by several students assailing the notification and prospectus issued by Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, Warangal, contending that the amended rule was arbitrary, violative of the Constitution and contrary to earlier division bench orders, which held that such a residence criterion lacked rational nexus to the object of the Rules. The petitioners sought directions to be treated as local candidates for MBBS/BDS admissions for the academic year 2025-26 in terms of those earlier judgments. T. Sharath, standing counsel for the university, informed the bench that GO 150 was issued after the Advocate General made a statement before the Supreme Court that candidates whose parents are in Central Government services, such as IAS, IPS, and IFS, would also be considered under the local category. The apex court took note of this statement, upheld GO 33, and thereafter, the state government issued GO 150 to safeguard the interests of such candidates. Earlier, the petitions were adjourned sine die pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the state’s appeals against the High Court’s rulings for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 admission years. With the apex court having upheld the Government Order of July 2024 and the subsequent GO 150, the division bench dismissed all the writ petitions. However, the bench observed that the university shall consider the cases of candidates seeking the benefit of GO 150 and examine them on their own merits.

Spouse seeking legal relief not cruelty: HC

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ruled that resorting to legal remedies will not amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant husband, who sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The appellant, a practicing advocate, challenged the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, which rejected his petition for divorce under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant alleged that his wife subjected him to mental cruelty by accusing him of infidelity, initiating criminal proceedings under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and staging public protests against him. In response, the respondent-wife denied the allegations and contended that she supported her husband throughout their married life, including financially assisting him during his legal education and contributing to the family’s welfare. She expressed readiness before the court to resume marital life despite past disputes. The panel observed that normal marital discord, including arguments and the pursuit of legal remedies, does not amount to cruelty under matrimonial law. The panel also observed that the marriage, though strained, was not beyond repair. The panel further noted that both parties are now senior citizens, and prolonging litigation would only add to their suffering and also emphasized the wife’s willingness to reconcile as a clear indication that the marriage is not irretrievably broken. Speaking for the panel, Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar observed that “The appellant being a practicing advocate, having entered into an inter-caste marriage, has to maintain social equilibrium. An advocate is a pillar of legal system and a member of society’s intellectual elite, to uphold a higher standard of social responsibility. He is expected to be more cautious and reasonable in the manner in which he conducts himself, both personally and professionally. Legal profession is a royal profession, which demands not only knowledge, skill, proficiency, but also utmost integrity, fairness and respect to truth.”

Patancheru MLA cleared of poll charges

Justice K. Sarath of the Telangana High Court on Friday dismissed an election petition filed against Patancheru MLA Gudem Mahipal Reddy. The judge allowed an application for rejection of the election petition filed by Kata Srinivas Goud. The petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to disclose certain immovable properties and sources of business income in his affidavit and also appealed to community groups through corrupt practices. The respondent contended that the petition did not comply with the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and disclosed no cause of action. Counsel for the respondent, N. Naveen Kumar, argued that the election petition lacked the “material facts” required to raise triable issues and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He submitted that all assets were duly disclosed and that the properties referred to had already been alienated. He also pointed out that, except for a vague reference, there were no specific pleadings to establish “undue influence” under the RP Act. Accepting these submissions, the judge held that the petition did not disclose any cause of action and accordingly dismissed it.

HC summons finance secretary in contempt

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court ordered the presence of the finance secretary Sandeep Kumar Sultania in court on November 14 to purge himself of charges of contempt. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by Malladi Mahender Reddy, a retired government employee, alleging inordinate delay in the disbursement of retirement benefits. Despite completing all formalities and submitting multiple representations, the petitioner complained of non-release of gratuity, commutation, PRC arrears, and DA differences, resulting in severe financial hardship during post-retirement life. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that withholding statutory retirement dues amounts to a violation of constitutional rights, affecting the dignity and livelihood of senior citizens. Justice Bheemapaka, upon taking cognisance of the grievance, directed the issuance of Form-1 notice, calling upon the principal secretary and concerned authorities to submit a response and explain the reasons for the delay.