TMREIS accused of ignoring seniority in effecting promotions
Hyderabad: The action of the Telangana Minorities Residential Educational Institutions Society (TMREIS) in effecting promotions to the post of principals without preparing a seniority list has been challenged before the state High Court. Justice Pulla Karthik ordered notice in a writ plea filed by G. Sailaja and 67 others, working as junior lecturers in junior colleges across the state. The petitioners allege that the society and other respondent authorities did not prepare an integrated/common seniority list of junior lecturers working in residential junior colleges and grade II principals working in residential schools before giving promotion to the post of principal grade I residential schools. The petitioners allege that the actions of the respondent authorities were discriminatory and in direct violation of the constitution. The petitioners further allege that the government order issued by the respondent authorities for revising the pay scale of one principal instead of including principal grade I and grade II is also arbitrary and illegal. After hearing the petitioner, the judge directed the government pleader to enquire if the seniority list has been prepared by the respondent authorities or not and posted the matter for further adjudication.
Student files plea questioning rejection of fee reimbursement
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging Telangana Scheduled Castes development department’s rejection of fee reimbursement request by a student. The judge was hearing a wit plea filed by 20-year-old Dasari Suprathik, who alleged that the respondent authorities had failed to consider his application for reimbursement of fees in respect of post-matric scholarship for his undergraduate MBBS course. The petitioner alleges that his request was illegally rejected based on GO No. 66 of the social welfare department dated September 8, 2010. The petitioner alleged that the rejection was irregular and in violation of the constitution. After hearing the petitioner, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response.
Centre’s stance on freedom fighters pension disbursal challenged in HC
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the stance of the Central government in not extending freedom fighter pension to widows and family members of martyrs. The judge was dealing with a bunch of writ pleas filed by Gudipati Sujatha and several others aggrieved by the stance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division (MHAFFD). The petitioners allege that the ministry’s wing had denied pension to them under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension scheme. The petitioners further alleged that despite the recommendations of both the erstwhile government of Andhra Pradesh and the Hyderabad special screening committee in 2009, the respondent authorities refused to accord them the benefits of the pension scheme, citing their ineligibility under the fresh GOI guidelines of eligibility. After hearing the petitioners, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response.
Administrative orders must be detailed: HC
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court emphasised that the government departments should pass elaborate orders with detailed reasons while considering a representation of an aggrieved person. The judge was disposing of a contempt case against the Telangana higher education department (THED) filed by Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society against THED alleging non-compliance with the earlier court orders. Earlier, the judge had directed the department to consider the representation of the petitioner for necessary permissions pertaining to establishment of a private university. While the judge disposed of the contempt case as the earlier order passed in the writ plea was challenged before a division bench, the judge observed that passing of mechanical orders by any government department without considering the spirit of the orders of the High Court, to reconsider was distasteful and disables the purpose of delivering justice rightfully to the aggrieved citizens.