Senior counsel K. Vivek Reddy, appearing for the AICTE, argued that institutions were required to fulfill certain conditions including having a building permission and occupancy certificate issued by the competent authority as specified
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara on Thursday permitted Sultan Ul Uloom Educational Society and others to provisionally admit students into various courses pending adjudication of the refusal of the AICTE to grant approval. The panel was hearing the management of the society and others aggrieved by its non-inclusion on the net matrix enabling students to opt for its colleges. Earlier, the appellants suffered an order in the hands of a single judge who found that their land dispute qua a private party inhibited their recognition. Consequently, the single judge upheld the action of the AICTE in refusing recognition to its institutions situated at Banjara Hills here. Senior counsel D. Prakash Reddy argued that the appellant institutions had been running since the 1980s and solely because of a title dispute with regard to a certain extent of the property the AICTE could not refuse recognition. He pointed out that AICTE in 2017 refused to grant approval to the institutions which was challenged in a writ petition; the refusal was suspended, and colleges were permitted to admit the students for different courses. Senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy argued that title enquiry or building permission dispute cannot be a parameter for AICTE to refuse the approval and put the colleges into the “no admission” category. He argued that the suspension order of the single judge in 2017 was in force till 2024. If no extension was granted, the interest of the institution, and the students, would be significantly affected. Senior counsel K. Vivek Reddy, appearing for the AICTE, argued that institutions were required to fulfill certain conditions including having a building permission and occupancy certificate issued by the competent authority as specified. He contended that without complying with the fundamental requirements, colleges were permitted to run on the strength of an interim order. When a single judge finally dismissed the claim, the present appeal was filed seeking the same relief. The panel observed that the institutions were running since 1980 and based on the interim relief of a single judge, they were permitted to admit students for seven years since 2017. The panel accordingly permitted the colleges to admit the students provisionally and made it clear that such admissions would be provisional and subject to the outcome of writ appeals. The panel posted the matter to June 16 at 2.15 pm, stating that parties have to argue finally, and no accommodation or adjournments would be granted.
Counsel assails TGPSC defence
Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court continued hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the alleged irregularities in the conduct and evaluation of the Group-I Mains examination held according to Notification No. 02/2024, dated February 19, 2024. The judge on Thursday heard detailed rejoinder submissions advanced by senior counsel Rachana Reddy on behalf of the petitioners, who were aggrieved aspirants in the Group-I recruitment process. Senior counsel Rachana Reddy, while rebutting the arguments made in the response and vacate petition filed by the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC), argued that the explanations offered were vague, self-serving and unsupported by any material evidence. Senior counsel argued that the TSPSC's assertion that separate hall tickets were issued merely to facilitate sequencing for OMR printing was illogical and had no precedent in the conduct of major public examinations such as UPSC, where a single hall ticket was used throughout the process to ensure transparency and integrity. Referring to the changing numbers presented by the TSPSC regarding candidates who appeared for the Mains examination, she argued that such ambiguity raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the evaluation and the credibility of the final General Ranking List (GRL), especially when the ranks of the petitioners themselves could have been altered. Senior counsel also highlighted that the TSPSC’s explanation of manually collecting attendance data during the Mains was a deviation from its own biometric-based attendance system and questioned whether biometrics were actually used at all. Referring to specific evaluation-related irregularities, she pointed out that TSPSC failed to publish provisional marks in the public domain and instead chose to release them individually to candidates. She argued that this secrecy enabled arbitrary tampering, which was evident from multiple candidates reporting drastic drops in marks after recounting. In particular, she questioned the abnormal success rate from two centres, Centre Codes 18 and 19, both housed in Koti Women's College. Nearly 10 per cent of the selected candidates allegedly hailed from these two centres. Senior counsel contended that this “phenomenally abnormal” performance was deeply suspect and required judicial scrutiny. On procedural fairness, she objected to the impleadment of a candidate named Bommu Poojitha Reddy, contending that the judge only directed that she be impleaded as a respondent, and not as a petitioner. Senior counsel recalled that TSPSC had a history of paper leaks, with 18 papers previously compromised, and argued that the present case reflected a continuing pattern of compromised processes. Even seemingly minor irregularities, when compounded, amounted to what she described as ‘passive malpractice.’ The judge posted the matter for further hearing on Friday.
3. HC quashes criminal case against Uber India
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Uber India in connection with the death of an assistant sub-inspector (ASI) who was fatally injured in a road accident allegedly caused by an Uber driver. The judge allowed a criminal petition filed by Uber India against whom a case was registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act. The incident occurred in March 2021, when ASI A. Mahipal Reddy, on night patrol duty, was hit by a speeding Uber cab near Nizampet. The ASI died due to his injuries two days later. The vehicle driver fled the scene and Uber India was implicated for allegedly encouraging unsafe driving practices through incentive structures. The judge found no material evidence linking Uber India to the crime, noting that the company functioned solely as a technology intermediary and did not employ the driver or own the vehicle. The judge observed that no employer-employee relationship existed between Uber and the accused driver and that the basic ingredients to attract Section 304 Part II IPC — knowledge or intention to cause death — were absent. Citing Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents, the judge concluded that the continuation of proceedings against Uber India amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
4. Fiscal constraints no defence: HC
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court reiterated that pensionary benefits were not a matter of charity but a right earned through decades of service and sacrifice. The judge strongly criticised the state government for delaying retirement benefits to a retired assistant engineer, despite clear entitlement and the lapse of several months since retirement. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by A. Narender Reddy, who retired in June 2024, after 40 years of unblemished service. Despite the bills being processed and token numbers issued by August 2024, the government failed to release the amounts due, citing a lack of funds. The benefits include gratuity, commutation, leave encashment and GPF final payment totalling `74 lakh. While the government pleader blamed fiscal constraints, the judge refused to accept this as justification for withholding earned dues. “Employees work tirelessly, often saving through government-backed schemes with the belief that these funds will be available when needed. Delays can severely impact their post-retirement lives,” the judge observed. The judge allowed the writ petition and directed the government to release all pending retirement benefits to the petitioner within ten weeks.
