Hyderabad: Justice N. Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court on Friday directed the medical department not to insist on seven promoted doctors to join their new place of service till July 22. The judge has posted two writ petitions on the issue to date. The petitions were filed by Dr A. Subodh Kumar, professor of plastic surgery, along with Dr K. Nagarjuna, professor of paediatric surgery, Dr Ravi Sekhar Rao, professor of ophthalmology, all from Gandhi Medical College; Dr Ratna Andallu, professor of gynaecology, Hanamkonda, Dr A. Aparna, professor of paediatrics, Dr Madhu Babu, professor of STDs and Dr Shobhan, professor of ENT. They challenged their transfers from academic posts to administrative posts as principals of medical colleges. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the rules were clear, that a person was entitled to exercise his options of not offering his candidature for promotion. All the petitioner doctors stated that they were giving up their career advancement in light of their academic commitment. The impugned order of common transfer was also faulted for violating the rules, which gave the doctors 15 days, but the government was insisting on immediately releasing the petitioners. Government pleader S. Satyanarayana vociferously argued that Central funds would lapse if the colleges did not have a principal and that the poor would be affected. He also pointed out that transfer was a condition of service and doctors could not shy away from being transferred. Senior counsel pointed out that the subject matter of the writ petition did not deal with transfers simplicitor but were cases of transfer on promotion and once the candidate exercised his option and sacrificed promotion, to still transfer them would be vengeful and illegal.
PIL Questions Construction Of New OGH
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paula and Justice Renuka Yara ordered notices to the government and civic authorities to respond in a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the construction of the new Osmania General Hospital building at the Goshamahal stadium in the city. Gundolu Ramu in the PIL stated that the area was declared in the layout as parkland and open space. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the law prohibited any construction on open parks and stadiums unless such a structure was related to the main activity. He said that countless trees will be felled under the guise of the construction and with the state-of-the-art premises, the existing system in the vicinity will be disturbed. The petitioner said that traffic snarls were already affecting the congested area around Goshamahal, which is characterised by narrow streets and commercial shops. The idea of robbing the citizen of lung space in the name of a health facility is a paradoxical product of non-application of the mind. Senior counsel pointed out that it was indeed paradoxical that the right to life was being affected in the name of the construction of a new hospital. He made clear that the petitioner had no objections to the construction of a new hospital, but it could not be at the cost of eating into lungspace and violating the law.
Rs 10.59-L Scholarship Paid After 12-yr Legal Battle
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court on Friday closed a long-pending contempt case filed against senior officials of the social welfare department, recording compliance with judicial directions and payment of overdue financial assistance under the Ambedkar Overseas Vidya Nidhi (AOVN) to a Scheduled Caste student, 12 years after he was selected. The contempt proceedings arose from a writ petition filed by Ganta Venkata Narahari, a retired superintendent of the panchayat raj department and father of Ganta Harikrishna, who applied for financial aid under the AOVN with the hope that his son would be extended the benefit to pursue overseas education. In 2013, a state committee constituted under GO Ms. No. 54 selected Harikrishna as one of six students in the first batch for the US. He was advised to proceed with his admission formalities and leave for the US, which he did in August 2013, in view of urgent academic timelines. Despite fulfilling all formalities and having his name listed at Serial No. 1 in the selection list, no scholarship was disbursed. Counsel for the petitioner S. Lakshmikanth contended that he was a retired government servant drawing a monthly pension of over Rs 20,000 and persistently visited government offices and made numerous representations over the years seeking sanction of the promised scholarship. He pointed out that eventually, in 2021, the authorities issued a letter stating that Harikrishna’s application had been rejected on the ground of exceeding the prescribed annual income ceiling of Rs 2 lakh. In response to another representation, the commissioner of the SC development department reiterated the rejection on the same income ceiling ground through a letter in 2023. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. After hearing the matter, Justice Bheemapaka, in an order issued in February 2024, observed that the rejection was arbitrary. The court noted that even after deductions for medical advance and housing loan, the petitioner’s annual income stood at less than Rs 2 lakh corroborated by the tahsildar’s income certificate showing the same, well within the eligibility criteria. The authorities were directed to sanction and pay the financial assistance under the AOVN to the petitioner’s son. It was brought to the notice of the court that the appeal preferred by the state was dismissed at the admission stage and special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court was also dismissed, with the apex court imposing a cost of
Rs 1 lakh and directing its Registry to initiate recovery from the erring officers. The Supreme Court stressed that such non-compliance with court orders sent a dangerous message and would not be tolerated. It was alleged by the petitioner that despite these orders, the authorities failed to comply with the directions of the court, forcing him to initiate contempt proceedings against five officials, including the principal secretary and the district collector of Karimnagar. During the pendency of the contempt case, the government complied and disbursed Rs 10.59 lakh, covering the sanctioned Rs10 lakh and applicable interest. Taking note of this compliance, Justice Bheemapaka closed the contempt case.
HC Questions Locus Standi Of Petitioner
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court accepted a writ plea against multiple private schools in the Medchal-Malkajgiri district allegedly operating without mandatory ‘fire no objection certificates’ (fire NOCs), in violation of statutory fire safety norms. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by D. Rakesh, a social worker seeking a direction against the authorities to take stringent action against the erring institutions. The petition specifically named institutions, including Edify School, Siri School, Academic Heights Public School, The Master Minds School and others at Malkajgiri, alleging that these schools function without valid fire NOCs, posing grave safety risks to students and staff. Relying on information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities, including the district educational officer (DEO), regional joint director of school education, and the fire department failed to enforce fire safety norms and arbitrarily allowed the schools in question to operate without compliance. The petitioner termed this inaction “illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 13 of the Telangana Fire Service Act, 1999, the government order issued on July 26, 2019, and the National Building Code of India.” He sought suspension of all permissions, recognitions and affiliations granted to the schools and requested that they be barred from continuing operations until they obtain valid fire NOCs. He also prayed for direction to the respondents to conduct immediate fire safety inspections of all private educational institutions within the district and submit a compliance report to the court. During the hearing, the judge questioned the locus standi of the petitioner, seeking clarity on his authority to file the petition in the public interest. Upon request, the petitioner was given additional time to produce documents substantiating his locus standi. The matter now stands posted to July 14.
