Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court has admitted a writ petition filed by a postgraduate medical student challenging the enforcement of compulsory government service and the withholding of her certificates and registration by the directorate of medical education and other authorities.
Hyderabad:Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court has admitted a writ petition filed by a postgraduate medical student challenging the enforcement of compulsory government service and the withholding of her certificates and registration by the directorate of medical education and other authorities. The petition was filed by Dr Gudavarthi Sriya, who sought a declaration that the actions of the authorities — including the requirement of a Rs 20 lakh bond at the time of admission and the enforcement of compulsory government service for senior residents for the academic year 2021-2022 — were arbitrary, illegal and beyond their jurisdiction. he petitioner contended that she was admitted through the All India NEET quota and hence the state government’s notification mandating senior residency service was not applicable to her. She contended that Osmania Medical College was unlawfully withholding her original certificates and that the Telangana State Medical Council was refusing to issue a no-objection certificate (NOC) and register her postgraduate qualification unless she complied with the mandatory service requirement. The petitioner maintained that these actions violated her fundamental rights under the Constitution and contradicted the legislative intent of Amendment Act No. 6 of 2018, which repealed the provisions of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968, relating to compulsory service for postgraduates. The judge posted the matter for further hearing.
Plea over denial of compassionate job accepted
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court accepted a writ plea challenging the rejection of the compassionate appointment of a daughter following the death of her mother, a government employee due to her marital status. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Nasreen Begum. It was the case of the petitioner that her marital status was unjustly used to deny her the appointment, she contended that married sons faced no such discrimination. Counsel for the petitioner argued that a married daughter cannot be excluded from compassionate appointments solely based on her marital status, especially when she continued to reside in the same household as her late mother. Her mother, who herself secured a compassionate job after her husband’s death, later became a regular employee, making the claim of petitioner compelling, counsel argued. The petitioner emphasised that compassionate appointments were meant to provide immediate relief to bereaved families facing sudden financial distress. She complained that unless another family member had availed the benefit or specific disqualifications applied — neither of which existed in her case — the rejection was unjust. The judge directed the respondents to file their responses.
HC puts off anti-defection PIL hearing
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara deferred a hearing in a high-stakes public interest litigation (PIL) that seeks the disqualification of several MLAs under the anti-defection law. The PIL was filed by Dr K.A. Paul, appearing as a party-in-person, alleging that the elected representatives, including Danam Nagender, violated the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by contesting elections under different party banners and thereby indulging in political defection. The petitioner sought directions to the Election Commission of India to enforce anti-defection laws strictly and to implement systemic reforms to prevent what he termed the “commercialisation of elected offices.” During the hearing, senior counsel for the respondents pointed out that an identical issue was adjudicated by a coordinate bench of the Telangana High Court and the judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court. He pointed out that special leave petitions were heard by the apex court and judgment was reserved. Considering the overlapping legal questions and to maintain judicial discipline, the panel deferred further hearings and posted the matter to June 25.
