Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court adjourned the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the lack of adequate healthcare facilities in court complexes across the state. The panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was dealing with a PIL filed by Harsha Vardhan Gujjeti, a practising advocate. The petitioner pointed out an incident in Telangana High Court on February 18 when an advocate, namely, P. Venugopal Rao collapsed and died of a heart attack while presenting a case before a single judge bench. It was further reported in the Deccan Chronicle that “others in the court tried to revive him and performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). He was then rushed to Osmania General Hospital, where doctors declared him dead”. The petitioner, citing this and similar instances, alleged that during his visits to various courts across the state, he found no health centres or ambulances — except at the Telangana High Court — to address potential medical emergencies involving advocates or court staff during working hours. He urged the court to direct the authorities to establish adequate healthcare facilities, including a health centre and an ambulance equipped with life-saving equipment and trained personnel, in every court complex across Telangana. Taking note of the plea, the bench directed the Registrar to submit a detailed report by April 17 and adjourned the matter for further hearing on April 21.
HC sets aside juvenile’s conviction over improper trial
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside the conviction of a juvenile accused in a Pocso and murder case, holding that the mandatory assessment procedure under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, had not been properly followed before deciding to try the child as an adult. The panel comprising Justice K. Surender and Justice E.V. Venugopal was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Mohammad Dastagir Khan, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. According to the prosecution, the appellant was involved in an alleged kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a 10-year-old boy. Though the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment and transferred the case to the Children’s Court, the panel found that the Children’s Court did not undertake an independent evaluation, as required under Section 19(1)(i) of the Act. The panel observed that the Children’s Court merely relied on the findings of the Board without applying its own judicial mind to assess the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile, his ability to understand the consequences, and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The panel emphasised that such an assessment is not a mere formality but a crucial safeguard given the serious implications of trying a juvenile as an adult, which could result in harsher punishments, including life imprisonment or capital punishment. The panel said that failure to conduct an independent inquiry by the Children’s Court renders the trial invalid. The panel accordingly remanded the matter to the Children’s Court for a proper inquiry under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The panel also clarified that if the Children’s Court finds that the appellant should be tried as an adult, it may proceed to pass judgment based on the evidence already on record without ordering a fresh trial.
Notices issued on Grama Palana appointments
Justice N. Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court issued notices in a petition challenging a government order and notification related to the appointment of Grama Palana Officers. The plea, filed by Devanaboina Venkatesh and 21 others — currently serving as junior assistants and formerly employed as Village Revenue Officers (VROs) and Village Revenue Assistants (VRAs) — alleges that the directives violate their constitutional rights. The petitioners argued that their prior service in the revenue department was overlooked and objected to being subjected to a screening test for reappointment, despite the government having previously collected options from interested candidates. They contended that although they were transferred to other departments years ago, they had served in revenue roles for over a decade. Being now asked to return to their parent department and undergo fresh recruitment procedures without any recognition of their prior service, they argued, was arbitrary and unjust. The government, in its defense, argued that the new post required minimum qualifications, including intermediate education and at least five years of total service, and that the screening process was part of the policy decision taken to strengthen revenue administration. The judge raised questions on whether the petitioners, having opted to be considered, could now challenge the notification. The judge noted that the call for applications was based on interest and came with conditions attached, which the petitioners were aware of. The judge, however, admitted the matter and issued interim directions, stating that any appointments made pursuant to the challenged notification would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The judge directed the state to file their response.
Veterinary Assts seek retrospective promotions
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a writ plea of a group of veterinary assistants challenging the denial of notional seniority and retrospective promotion, despite their eligibility and inclusion in the zone of consideration since 2012. The judge admitted a writ plea filed by K. Ravindranath and eight others hallenging the action of the State Animal Husbandry Department and other respondents in granting only prospective promotions. The petitioners contended that this decision was made solely pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in an earlier writ petition, despite admissions made in the response filed by authorities in that very case regarding the availability of vacancies from 2012 onwards. The petitioners argued that though they were fully eligible, qualified, and within the zone of consideration, the authorities failed to grant them notional seniority and promotional benefits from 2012, thereby denying them their rightful career progression. The petitioners contended that such inaction was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the Constitution. The petitioners are seeking directions for reconsideration of their claims for notional promotion and seniority from 2012 based on the available vacancies for in-service candidates, with all consequential benefits including notional fixation of pay. Justice Nanda took note of the submissions and posted the matter for hearing the response of the respondent authorities.
