High Court seeks Telangana reply on teacher test fraud

HYDERABAD: The High Court directed the state government to respond to a petition seeking CBI probe into alleged irregularities in the selection of secondary grade teachers under DSC-1998 

Justice A Rajashekher Reddy was hearing a petition filed by K. Venu and four others from Warangal district alleging that the director of school education and the Dis-trict Selection Committee had appointed those who secured less marks.

Mr N. Arjun Kumar, counsel for the petitioners, said following the allegations of fraud, the erstwhile AP government had constituted a high-level committee headed by senior IAS officer I.V. Subba Rao. The committee had stated that irregularities had taken place.

He said that despite the report, the government had not taken action against the guilty. The judge directed the government to file counter affidavits within two weeks. 

HC to take note on withdrawl of cases
The High Court on Thursday cautioned the AP government that it would take a serious view of officials who moved an application before the trial court for withdrawing the criminal case against Giddalur MLA M. Ashok Reddy, contrary to the statement made before it. 

A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Uma Devi was dealing with the petition by Mr Shaik Mastan Vali, an ex-servicemen, seeking to quash GO no 379 issued on May 9, 2017, withdrawing the case against the MLA pending before the additional judicial first class magistrate court at Giddalur.

Mr N. Nagaraju, counsel for the petition, said that the police in 2015 had registered a case against the MLA and his followers for staging a protest in front of police station and for setting fire to a police jeep.  He said the MLA was elected on a YSRC ticket but had joined the ruling party after which the government withdrew the case. AP counsel said that the GO was based on the opinion of the assistant public prosecutor that the MLA had a limited role in the incident. 

After securing the government’s word that it would not move to get the case withdrawn, the bench referred to a Supreme Court order with regard to closure of cases and said it was aware what it had to do if the government acted contrary to the statement made before it.