Telangana HC Reserves Order On Disability Quota Rules
4 Aug 2025 9:39 PM IST4 Aug 2025 9:39 PM IST
A two-judge Bench of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by an assistant professor seeking interim protection of his candidacy for promotion to the post of associate professor (plastic surgery) for the panel year 2024-25
Telangana High Court (Image:DC)
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court reserved judgment in a writ plea challenging the conversion of the reservation for persons with disabilities from horizontal to vertical. A panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice S. Chalapathi Rao was hearing a writ plea filed by Masanipally Arjun and Arun Reddy Kukunoori, aspiring candidates for public service posts. The petitioners challenged the GO of 2019 and the consequent amendment to Rule 22 of the Telangana Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, which the petitioners contended unlawfully earmarked vertical reservation roster points to persons with disabilities. The petitioners contended that such reservation should be applied horizontally, in line with constitutional provisions and the judgment in the Indra Sawhney case. The petitioners also assailed the notification issued by the Telangana Public Service Commission in February 2024, stating that it violated the Constitution. The petitioners sought a direction to the state and TGPSC to implement horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities in all recruitments.
HC refuses promotion relief for Plastic Surgeon
A two-judge Bench of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by an assistant professor seeking interim protection of his candidacy for promotion to the post of associate professor (plastic surgery) for the panel year 2024-25. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin dealt with a writ appeal filed by Dr I. Raja Kiran Kumar Goud, who sought to ensure his inclusion in the ongoing promotional process, citing a legitimate expectation of relief in the disciplinary proceedings. At the time of the appeal, the related writ petition concerning his exclusion from the promotion reached the stage of issuance of notices and was yet to be adjudicated. The appellant argued that if interim relief was not granted, administrative delays could again deprive him of promotional opportunity for the current year. Opposing the appeal, the government pleader contended that the request for interim directions was premature. The panel observed that the single judge rightly refrained from issuing any interim direction, given that the main issue was yet to be decided. While acknowledging the appellant’s expectation and the timing of his appeal as a calculated move to protect his prospects, the panel found no grounds to intervene in the order of the single judge. The panel appeal accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Eye hospital contract faces legal scrutiny
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a writ plea challenging the award of a contract of Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services (IHFMS) at Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, alleging serious violations of tender conditions and constitutional principles. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by SS Consultancy. The petitioner questioned the legality of the proceedings issued by the director of medical education and a related communication issued by the superintendent of the hospital, which directed T. Venkateshwarlu to take over possession of the hospital premises for the provision of facility management services. The petitioner contended that the respondent was awarded the contract despite being ineligible and not technically qualified, as per the e-tender document issued by the hospital. It was alleged that the respondent failed to submit essential and valid documents required under the tender norms, yet was favoured over the petitioner, whose bid was fully compliant and eligible. Terming the allotment illegal, arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory, the petitioner contended that the process lacked transparency and was carried out in violation of the Constitution. The petitioner sought a declaration that the impugned proceedings were void and unsustainable in law and a direction to set aside the allotment made in favour of the unofficial respondent. The petitioner also sought a consequential direction to consider and award the tender to the petitioner, who claimed to be the rightful and eligible bidder under the terms of the original tender notification.
HC reviews licence issued to private chemist
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the allotment of a second generic medical shop to a private entity within the premises of the Government General Hospital, Mahbubnagar, allegedly in violation of a status quo order of the High Court. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Malaviya Charitable Trust. The petitioner challenged the validity of a licence issued by the assistant director, Drugs Control Administration, Sangareddy, in favour of M. Krishnudu, allowing the latter to operate a second generic medical shop on the hospital premises. According to the petitioner, the licence was granted in complete disregard of an earlier order passed by the High Court, which remained in force and recognised the petitioner’s entitlement. The petitioner argued that despite subsisting directions of the court, the authorities failed to honour the legal mandate and proceeded to issue a licence to another party. The petitioner contended that the action of the authorities was illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violated the Constitution. They sought a direction declaring the licence issued in favour of the unofficial respondent as bad in law and prayed for it to be set aside. The petitioner sought that the respondents be directed to permit the trust to operate the second generic medical shop in accordance with the earlier court order.
A two-judge Bench of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by an assistant professor seeking interim protection of his candidacy for promotion to the post of associate professor (plastic surgery) for the panel year 2024-25. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin dealt with a writ appeal filed by Dr I. Raja Kiran Kumar Goud, who sought to ensure his inclusion in the ongoing promotional process, citing a legitimate expectation of relief in the disciplinary proceedings. At the time of the appeal, the related writ petition concerning his exclusion from the promotion reached the stage of issuance of notices and was yet to be adjudicated. The appellant argued that if interim relief was not granted, administrative delays could again deprive him of promotional opportunity for the current year. Opposing the appeal, the government pleader contended that the request for interim directions was premature. The panel observed that the single judge rightly refrained from issuing any interim direction, given that the main issue was yet to be decided. While acknowledging the appellant’s expectation and the timing of his appeal as a calculated move to protect his prospects, the panel found no grounds to intervene in the order of the single judge. The panel appeal accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Eye hospital contract faces legal scrutiny
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a writ plea challenging the award of a contract of Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services (IHFMS) at Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, alleging serious violations of tender conditions and constitutional principles. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by SS Consultancy. The petitioner questioned the legality of the proceedings issued by the director of medical education and a related communication issued by the superintendent of the hospital, which directed T. Venkateshwarlu to take over possession of the hospital premises for the provision of facility management services. The petitioner contended that the respondent was awarded the contract despite being ineligible and not technically qualified, as per the e-tender document issued by the hospital. It was alleged that the respondent failed to submit essential and valid documents required under the tender norms, yet was favoured over the petitioner, whose bid was fully compliant and eligible. Terming the allotment illegal, arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory, the petitioner contended that the process lacked transparency and was carried out in violation of the Constitution. The petitioner sought a declaration that the impugned proceedings were void and unsustainable in law and a direction to set aside the allotment made in favour of the unofficial respondent. The petitioner also sought a consequential direction to consider and award the tender to the petitioner, who claimed to be the rightful and eligible bidder under the terms of the original tender notification.
HC reviews licence issued to private chemist
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the allotment of a second generic medical shop to a private entity within the premises of the Government General Hospital, Mahbubnagar, allegedly in violation of a status quo order of the High Court. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Malaviya Charitable Trust. The petitioner challenged the validity of a licence issued by the assistant director, Drugs Control Administration, Sangareddy, in favour of M. Krishnudu, allowing the latter to operate a second generic medical shop on the hospital premises. According to the petitioner, the licence was granted in complete disregard of an earlier order passed by the High Court, which remained in force and recognised the petitioner’s entitlement. The petitioner argued that despite subsisting directions of the court, the authorities failed to honour the legal mandate and proceeded to issue a licence to another party. The petitioner contended that the action of the authorities was illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violated the Constitution. They sought a direction declaring the licence issued in favour of the unofficial respondent as bad in law and prayed for it to be set aside. The petitioner sought that the respondents be directed to permit the trust to operate the second generic medical shop in accordance with the earlier court order.
( Source : Deccan Chronicle )
Next Story