Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State Waqf Board on termination of its employee. The panel of comprising of Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, upheld an order of a single judge who allowed the writ petition of Mohammedm Sanaullah Khan. Earlier, the employee of State Waqf Board filed a writ petition questioning the termination of his services. He contended inter alia that the termination was arbitrary, discriminatory and disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. The writ petitioner is charged of going on strike alongside other employees in May 2015 for non-payment of wages of April 2015. The panel speaking through Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili pointed out that the petitioner was purged at the domestic enquiry of other charges including demarcation of Waqf properties in Adilabad and the termination was based upon on the only surviving charge of participating in the strike. The panel also found that all the other striking employees were not given the extreme punishment of termination. The theory of proportionality in imposing the punishment as held by the single judge, was legal and valid, the panel found. It accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Autonomous status for St Marys Writ petition to be heard.
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of Telangana High Court will hear a writ plea pertaining to functioning of St. Marys Engineering College as an autonomous college. The judge took on file a writ plea filed by Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society and others, seeking a direction to the University Grants Commission (UGC) and Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) to act on proceedings thereby permitting the college to function as an autonomous college and consequently issue notification with regards to the same. The petitioners are also challenging the inaction of JNTU in failing to approve the autonomous status conferred upon the college by UGC for the academic year 2024-25. The petitioners would allege that the actions of the respondents in failing to issue the required notification within thirty days from the date of conferment as mandated under the UGC regulations pertaining to autonomous status upon colleges, despite the formal application of the petitioners is illegal and unreasonable.
ACP Chikadpalli in contempt case.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of Telangana High Court ordered notice to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda, in a contempt case pertaining to interference with the life and personal liberty of a student. The judge is dealing with a contempt case filed by Mamidishetti Hanuman alleging wilful disobedience of the earlier interim order passed by the judge in a writ plea. The petitioner filed a writ plea challenging the actions of police authorities in opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner in a mechanical manner without following due procedure of law. It is the case of the petitioner that rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner for his alleged involvement in five crimes. Four of those crimes pertain to disputes between the petitioner, who was then a developer of apartment complex and apartment purchasers. After perusing the material on record, the judge passed an interim order directing the respondents not to call the petitioner to the police station until further orders. The petitioner would allege that despite directions, the respondents failed to comply and are guilty of contempt. The judge posted the matter for further adjudication.
Fee reimbursement failure challenged
The Telangana High Court will continue hearing a writ plea challenging the denial of fee reimbursement for an MBA course at Vaagdevi Engineering College, Bolikunta. Justice T. Vinod Kumar sought clarification regarding the rules governing the fee reimbursement scheme in light of the student’s educational background. The judge is hearing a writ plea filed by Banka Vasanti, who studied up to the 10th grade in Hyderabad, pursued intermediate education for two years in Andhra Pradesh, and completed a three-year graduation course in the same state. Her application for the fee reimbursement scheme was rejected, citing the Presidential Order governing local and non-local reservations. Against the said rejection, the petitioner filed the present writ plea challenging the respondents’ denial of the fee reimbursement scheme as being illegal, arbitrary, and unjust. The petitioner also challenges the validity of the guidelines framed by the concerned authorities, contending that they are inconsistent with the spirit of Article 371(D) and a GO dated July 10, 1979. During the hearing, the judge questioned the applicability of the presidential order to the fee reimbursement scheme and asked the petitioner’s counsel to provide the relevant scheme guidelines. The petitioner’s counsel initially submitted information sourced from a private website, which the judge deemed unauthentic. The state, in its response, stated that no official guidelines currently exist on the matter. The petitioner’s counsel also sought additional time to obtain an official copy of the fee reimbursement scheme. The matter is scheduled for the next hearing in three weeks for further adjudication.
