The order was passed in response to a writ petition challenging the rejection of their request for compassionate appointment on April 17, 2023
Hyderabad: Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court directed the Director General of Police to consider the representation of a 54-year-old woman, seeking compassionate appointment for her elder daughter, who is currently unemployed and caring for the petitioner in her old age. The order was passed in response to a writ petition filed by Sultana and her daughter, challenging the rejection of their request for compassionate appointment on April 17, 2023. Mohd. Younus, assistant sub-inspector at the Kanchanbagh police station, passed away while in service on October 24, 2022. His family, including Sultana and her three children — two daughters and a son —decided to nominate the elder daughter for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioners stated that the son is an NRI residing in Canada and is not financially or emotionally connected to the family, and the younger daughter lives independently with her husband. The elder daughter has remained at home, caring for her mother and facing financial hardship. The petitioners argued that the authorities failed to consider these circumstances when rejecting the elder daughter’s application, citing procedural issues such as the absence of a financial status certificate for the elder daughter’s husband and adherence to government guidelines that generally exclude married daughters from compassionate appointments. The respondents submitted that, as per prevailing rules and government orders — including various memos and GOs — the son being an earning member abroad rendered other family members ineligible for such appointments. Additionally, it was pointed out that the deceased had listed only his spouse, and not his children, as dependents in official records. The judge, after hearing both sides, relied on various precedents that recognised the eligibility of married daughters for compassionate appointments under certain circumstances. It was held that, while the petitioners had not submitted complete documentation — particularly the financial details of the elder daughter’s husband — their case deserved reconsideration. In conclusion, the judge directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, including all relevant documents, especially the financial status of her daughter’s husband.
HC upholds award of tender
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court upheld the award of a tender for supply of chowkis, book racks, etc., for anganwadi centres in 33 districts. The judge dismissed a writ petition filed by Marc-M Furniture, Gudimalkapur, challenging the award of the tender to Shruthikesh Industries Private Limited, Kendriya Bhandar. The petitioner complained that it was orally informed that the affidavit disclosing that it had “not been blacklisted by any government department” was not notarized. Such a condition is not stipulated in the tender notification. Thus, the reasons cited by the respondents for disqualifying the bid were contrary to the tender conditions. The court reiterated the legal principle: Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, and malafides. Its purpose is to check whether the choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether the choice or decision is “sound.” When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or the award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to the award of the contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The judge answered in the negative the challenge on the ground that the decision is malafide or intends to favour a particular person. Justice Surepalli Nanda also answered in the negative the question. She accordingly dismissed the writ plea.
Plea filed against SCB demolition bid
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court sitting in vacation, took on file a writ plea challenging the alleged attempts of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and Defence Estate authorities to demolish a container structure and fencing situated at Bolaram, Secunderabad Cantonment. The judge was hearing the writ plea filed by Hazarimu Pratapmul HUF. The petitioner contended that the structure was lawfully erected and that their family has been in possession of the property since 1937, paying property taxes regularly. The petitioner would allege that the authorities were now seeking to demolish the structure, including barbed fencing, without any notice or adherence to the principles of natural justice or due procedure under the Cantonment Act. The Secunderabad Cantonment Board maintained that the land in question forms part of defence land and any construction thereon is unauthorised. After hearing both sides, the judge directed the Defence Estate Officer to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a specified timeframe. The judge further directed that status quo be maintained till such consideration is made, clarifying that the interim relief is limited to that period. The matter is posted for further hearing after the summer vacation.
