Telangana High Court Spikes Plea Of Med College For More PG Seats
The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by the medical college contending that it was entitled to 58 PG seats based on its infrastructure, faculty strength and compliance with the PGMSR-2024 regulations.
Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court junked a plea of the Maheshwara Medical College, Patancheru,
The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by the medical college contending that it was entitled to 58 PG seats based on its infrastructure, faculty strength and compliance with the PGMSR-2024 regulations. It alleged that the NMC acted arbitrarily by initially granting only 12 seats and later allowing only a partial increase, despite what it claimed was full eligibility. The college argued that the disapproval letters were not communicated, affecting its right to appeal, and claimed that certain deficiencies cited by the regulators, such as inflated data, low death rate, and IVP figures were based on factual errors. The judge noted that a show-cause notice had been issued, opportunities of hearing were provided, and the petitioner had availed both the statutory first appeal before the NMC and second appeal before the Centre. The judge held that no prejudice was made out, and the principles of natural justice were satisfied.
Driver wins case for service, back wages
Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court ruled that re-engagement of a terminated APSRTC driver on “humanitarian grounds” could not substitute consideration of his defence on merits and modified the appellate order to grant continuity of service with 25 per cent back wages. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Ramulu. The petitioner challenged proceedings issued on December 02, 2004 deleting his name from the approved list of drivers and the appellate order issued in February,2005, which directed his re-engagement as a fresh casual driver while treating the intervening period as “not on duty” for all purposes. It was pointed out that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in 2000, was involved in an accident in October 2004 when the bus he was driving dashed against a lorry. The front left wind glass and side “D” type glass were damaged and no passenger was injured.
Following a showcause notice and enquiry, the depot manager ordered termination. On appeal, the divisional manager modified the punishment and directed re-engagement as a fresh casual driver, placing reliance on a circular and recording that the decision was taken on humanitarian grounds. Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the accident occurred due to brake rolling and that the issue was reflected in the vehicle log-sheet prior to the incident. The respondents, TSRTC, attributed the accident to rash and negligent driving and relied on the mechanical inspection report that observed no defects in the vehicle. The court observed that the appellate authority granted re-engagement based on a circular and humanitarian considerations without examining the explanation of the petitioner on merits. Holding that continuity of service ought to follow to some extent once re-engagement was ordered, the judge directed that the period from termination till reporting for duty be treated as continuity of service with 25 per cent back wages. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Bail for accused in desecration case
The Telangana High Court enlarged an accused on bail in a case of alleged acts of desecration and vandalism at a religious site in Hyderabad. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition by a man arrayed as Accused No. 4 in a crime registered at the Kulsumpura police station. The prosecution alleged that on January 15, a group of persons raised slogans, removed and burned a religious flag, pelted stones and damaged nearby parked vehicles before fleeing the scene. Offences were invoked under multiple provisions of the BNS. Counsel for the petitioner, Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, argued that the accused was innocent, had no connection with the incident. He argued that no material demonstrated his participation and he was in judicial custody since January 19. It was pointed that crucial aspects of the investigation had been completed. The state opposed the grant of bail, arguing that the allegations were grave, involved disturbance of public peace and communal tension, and that the investigation was still in progress. After considering the rival submissions the judge noted that the complaint initially referred to unknown persons and that prosecution witnesses had already been examined. Taking into account the stage of investigation and the period of incarceration, the judge enlarged the petitioner on bail.
