Revenue officials told to accept plea seeking exemption from prohibited list

HYDERABAD: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court directed revenue authorities to entertain an online application on the question of excluding about 11 acres of land in Kalvakuntla village of Sangareddy district from the prohibited list. The judge disposed of a writ petition filed by Siva Sai Constructions against inclusion of the land in the prohibited list which would prevent its sale. The land was initially alienated in favour of Hyderabad Allwyn Limited (HAL) on payment of market value. The company was subsequently amalgamated with Voltas after which it was sold in a public auction to the petitioner, who obtained permission for conversion of land use and alienated the same in favour of third parties as plots. Attempts by the government to resume the land were set aside by the High Court. It is now the stance of the government that HAL and Voltas had violated terms of the assignment. The judge noticed that the government was party to the proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) where a MoU was entered into. The judge directed the government to consider afresh the application of the petitioner after considering various orders that pointed in their favour.

Reconsider specified pay-scale to teachers; govt told

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the state government to reconsider the proposal for paying specified pay-scales to teachers, and faulted it for acting in a mechanical manner and rejecting their claims. Earlier a similarly situated special grade teacher (SGBT) had challenged an enactment made in 1991 that had changed the payments due and sought recovering of money on the ground that the teachers were paid more than what they were eligible for. The Supreme Court allowed the claim, despite which the government refused to extend the benefit to the petitioners. “This court concludes that it is evident and apparent on the face of the record that the request of the petitioners has not been examined and no exercise in the direction has been undertaken.” The judge pointed out that the report submitted by the Karimnagar district education officer had not been considered. “Strangely, the order impugned was not even referred to the said proposals submitted to the commissioner and director of school education by the DEO. They just found the order of rejection to have been passed mechanically and also in violation of principles of natural justice.” The judge accordingly allowed the writ petition and directed the cases to be reconsidered.

Challenging selection norms after rejection can’t be entertained: HC

Justice Surepalli Nanda said that any person, who participates in a selection process while knowing that they were not in accordance with the rules, forsakes grounds for challenging the process after not being selected. The order came on a writ plea filed by Divya Kondaveeti against the Defence Laboratories Educational Society, represented by its secretary and two primary teachers who were hired, instead of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that the primary school teacher (PRT) selection procedure had taken place in defiance of the state’s notification. She contended the government notification required a written exam (70 per cent) and interview (30 per cent). The selection list was unlawful as only the interview was conducted, and not the exam. The department concerned stated that the petitioner went through the interview without raising any objection and filed the writ petition after being rejected. The court took notice that the petitioner knew that the society would not conduct the written exam.

PJTSAU asked to revaluate answer sheets of petitioner

Justice M. Sudheer Kumar of the Telangana High Court granted interim direction and asked officials of Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agriculture University (PJTSAU) to revaluate answer sheets of the petitioner pertaining to the subject HORT-381 of third year Agricultural B.Sc. (Hons), and place the result before them by June 19, the next date of hearing. Shiva Leela filed a writ petition seeking the revaluation in terms of the order issued by University Grants Commission (UGC), dated 19.07.2018.  The petitioner, who was unsuccessful in the examination, contended that UGC required VCs and registrars of all universities to suo motu issue guidelines for revaluation of answer sheets. Even after about five years, the university had not taken any steps to frame the guidelines. The request of the petitioner for revaluation is being denied on the ground that no guidelines are framed by the university; the guidelines that are approved by the academic senate come into force from 2023-24. The judge, while granting the interim order, observed that inaction of the university cannot be held against the petitioner's right to seek revaluation of answer sheets.