Telangana High Court Directs Varsity to Consider Web Option Plea

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, disposed of a writ plea seeking permission to exercise web options for MBBS/BDS admission under the NRI quota for 2025-26. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Aviram Prasad Parida from Odisha. The petitioner contended that, though he had registered and paid the requisite fee under the management quota, he could not exercise web options before the 2 pm deadline on September 24 due to technical reasons. The petitioner submitted that despite approaching the university the same day, his request was not entertained and that the last date for counselling under the NRI quota was expiring. The Kaloji Narayan Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS), in its response, referred to the September 22 notification, which stipulated that candidates who failed to exercise web options in the first phase would be ineligible for subsequent rounds to prevent seat-blocking. The respondent university pointed out that the corrigenda dated October 4 and October 6 allowed fresh registrations only for candidates who had exercised web options earlier. Standing counsel submitted that if the petitioner made a representation, the university would consider it in accordance with the law. Taking note of the submissions, the panel, without going into the merits of the case, granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the university in respect of his claim for exercising web options for MBBS/BDS admission under the NRI quota. The university was directed to consider the same in accordance with law within two days and, if permitted, to consider the petitioner’s case against unfilled seats in the mop-up round.

HC says seniority revision rectifies old error

The Telangana High Court upheld a state government order revising the seniority of 107 police personnel, rejecting a series of petitions filed by officers who claimed that the move would unlawfully overturn a seniority system in place for more than two decades. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by P. Raghupathi Reddy and others, who challenged the government order issued in 2021 that reassigned notional seniority to personnel from specialist units such as motor transport, armourer and band. The petitioners, all serving in the general duty stream, argued that the government’s decision to “club” specialist personnel with general duty officers violated statutory service rules and constitutional rights. They contended that the order would allow those who were once their juniors to supersede them in future promotions, causing them serious career setbacks. The judge noted that battalions such as the 12th and 13th Telangana State Special Police (TSSP) contained no sanctioned specialist posts, and personnel assigned specialist duties continued to belong to the general duty cadre. Their exclusion from general duty promotions for years was the result of a misinterpretation of service rules. Justice Bheemapaka observed that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment under the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and cited government orders that allow specialist personnel to be considered for promotion to general duty posts. “This is not a case of unsettling seniority but of rectifying an administrative illegality. The so-called settled seniority was itself based on a fundamental error,” the judge observed.

Clever drafting cannot save limitation: HC

Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court, allowing a revision petition, ruled that mere clever drafting would not give a cause of action for the suit otherwise barred by limitation. The judge was dealing with a petition filed by 22nd Century Infrastructures & Projects, aggrieved by a suit filed by one Mohd. Ismail Khan. The petitioner filed an application before the civil court to reject the plaint. When the civil court rejected the application and proceeded to entertain the suit, the present revision was filed in the High Court. Plaintiff Ismail Khan had lodged the suit seeking a declaration that he was the owner of the properties in question and to set aside certain sale deeds in favour of the petitioner. Among other grounds, the petitioner pleaded that the suit was woefully time-barred. The judge observed that the plaintiff filed the suit decades after the original ownership transfer by legal representatives and had failed to provide specific dates of dispossession, rendering the claim time-barred. The judge rejected the plea that the cause of action was a mixed question of facts and law, which could only be decided only after a full-fledged trial of the suit and therefore, the application filed by the defendant is premature. Additionally, the judge noted that the essential requirement of Hiba — delivery of possession — was not complied with, rendering the alleged Hiba in 2020 invalid under Mohammadan law. Consequently, no rights in the suit schedule properties were transferred to the plaintiffs. Scrutinising the plaint alongside supporting documents, the judge concluded that the trial court failed to assess whether the suit disclosed a genuine cause of action and whether it was barred by limitation, warranting intervention at this stage.

SEC told to decide on new party registration

The Telangana High Court accepted a writ plea filed by the Telangana Rajyadhikara Party challenging the inaction of the State Election Commission (SEC) in registering it as a political party and in not allotting a common symbol to contest in the forthcoming panchayat raj elections. A panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Moinuddin was hearing a writ plea filed by the party, which complained that despite submitting representations in September seeking registration of the party and allotment of a common symbol, no action was taken by the Commission. The petitioner relied on Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, contending that the commission was duty-bound to consider its request for registration. Senior counsel G. Vidyasagar, appearing for the State Election Commission, submitted that the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, were not applicable, and that the process of registration and allotment of symbols for local body elections is governed by the Telangana Registration of Political Parties and Symbols Order. He submitted that under the order, a party is required to publish its proposal for registration in two newspapers, one in the vernacular and another in English, and if no objections are received, the commission shall proceed to register the party. The panel disposed of the writ petition as premature and directed the SEC to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application for registration in accordance with law within 15 days.