Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court has directed the Registry to list a PIL for hearing seeking appointment of a permanent Chief Justice to the court and also appointment of other judges.
Senior counsel Sarasani Satyam Reddy moved the PIL seeking to declare as unconstitutional and in violation of Article 216 of the Constitution the non-appointment of Chief Justice to the Hyderabad High Court even after 22 months of superannuation of the previous Chief Justice.
The Registry raised an objection for listing the matter for hearing and placed it before a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan. The bench, however, overruled the objection and directed the Registry to list the case.
Mr Reddy submitted that the sanctioned strength of the High Court was 61 judges, but at present, only 27 judges were holding the office, with a 60 percent vacancy. The non-appointment of judges up to the sanctioned strength is crippling the functioning of the HC, he said.
He submitted that of the existing strength of 27 judges, only four belonged to Telangana state, and of these four, only two were from the Bar and the other two from the subordinate judiciary.
The last appointment of a member from the Bar belonging to Telangana to the Bench took place in April 2013. Mr Reddy urged the court to direct the Centre to expedite the process of appointment of a Chief Justice and judges to the Hyderabad High Court.
The Hyderabad High Court has directed the Centre and authorities concerned take necessary steps to ensure that sufficient financial provision is made to meet the expenditure and to make payments to part-time instructors (vocational instructors) in work, art, health and physical education as per the enhanced remuneration.
Justice P. Naveen Rao granted the interim order while dealing with a petition by A. Raju and 24 other part-time instructors seeking to declare as illegal the failure of the TS Sarva Siksha Abhiyan to pay the remuneration that was enhanced from Rs 6000 to Rs 12,000, despite approval of the HRD ministry and other offices concerned.
Standing counsel appearing for the state project director submitted that though the remuneration was enhanced, budgetary provision was not made and therefore, the SSA was unable to make enhanced remuneration. While granting the interim order, the judge issued notices to the respondents directing them to file counter affidavits.
