Two panels of judges in the Telangana High Court delayed their rulings on the University Grants Committee (UGC) body, which is considered to be the university regulations for 2023, and previous regulations for 2019, 2016 and 2010. The team members of Acting Justices Sujoy Paul and Renuka Yara, were investigated by Sujoy Paul and Justry Renuka Yara and investigated with the company. Hyderabad. The petitioner argues that UGC regulations violate the state’s jurisdiction in granting university status, particularly as being considered university status, and allow the establishment of off-campus centers without the consent of the state. The petitioner believes that under the Telangana Education Act and the Telangana University Act, these regulations violate the rights of the Telangana government. The petitioner also argued that the process of granting a process deemed to be a university status and allowing off-campus centers without considering the state’s educational framework, with prior approval inconsistent with the provisions of the UGC Act. Furthermore, the state believes that these regulations violate the Constitution because they conflict with Article 32 of the list of states in the seventh timetable of the Constitution of India (List II), which stipulates the powers of universities other than universities established by parliament. The petitioners attempted to declare UGC regulations Ultra Vires and unconstitutional, praying for their repeal and approval of any approval they believe is considered to be considered university status or Telangana off-campus centers. The panel ordered notifications to the International Symbiosis University (deemed as), Malla Reddy Vishwavidyapeeth (believed as a university) and other universities and directed the UGC to submit its response. A further hearing was issued two weeks later.
Rejection of TG Lawcet’s request
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court dismissed a written petition challenging the TG Lawcet 2025 notice involving the approval of a qualified candidate to apply for a 5-year comprehensive LLB program. The judge is handling a written petition filed by a student, Shaik Abdul Majeeb, and believes that the notice is unconstitutional and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner’s case is that TG Lawcet 2025 notifies the invitation to apply for the three-year and five-year LLB courses for the 2025-26 academic year, and according to the eligibility criteria, candidates applying for the five-year LLB course must complete the interim examination (10+2 modes) or equivalent general examinations, or a certain number of portions. However, the notice does not impose an age limit on applicants in a three- or five-year LLB course, allowing candidates of any age to apply. The petitioner believes that the lack of age restrictions may affect the quality and dynamics of legal education. It has been argued that candidates who have completed their degree will have an unfair advantage because of their previous experience in competitive exams, making it easier for them to get seats on fresh senior graduates. Furthermore, it was argued that the provision allowed degree-eligible candidates to participate in the five-year LLB program, undermining the intent of the course, designed directly for students entering legal education after 10+2 studies. The judge had no advantage in the petitioner’s argument and rejected the writ request.
HC hears EFLU expelled students
The Telangana High Court will hear a writ request from a doctoral student, challenging his appeal for the eviction of the English and Foreign Languages ​​University (EFLU). Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy is handling a writ request from Meghdeep Saha, questioning his removal from the University Rolls and refusing to be re-entered. The EFLU received complaints from male and female students against petitioners accusing of sexual harassment. The petitioner had earlier turned to the High Court in two separate written appeals and questioned his suspension and subsequent recommendations from the Internal Complaints Commission (ICC) to expel him in light of alleged sexual harassment allegations. In the first writ request, the court put his suspension aside and directed the university to conduct new inquiries strictly in accordance with 2015 UGC regulations. In a second writ request, the court directed the university’s appeal to authorize the disposal of the petitioner’s appeal to litigate his expulsion. The petitioner now argues that despite the earlier orders from the court, the university still dismissed the appeal with inappropriate consideration, making his eviction final. The petitioner believes that the University failed to comply with due process and violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution. The petitioner seeks to restore the PhD program.
The Landdi collector summoned in the case of temp
CV judge Bhasker Reddy of the Telangana High Court sent notice No. 1 to regional collectors of Ranga Reddy Dr. S. Harish and D. Srinivas Reddy of Tahsildar of Shamshabad for his failure to comply with the court order. The despised plea was raised by the decline of Narayana, challenging the action in the special court’s Rangareddy area because they failed to comply with judicial orders to reconsider the land dispute case. The judge had made an earlier decision and requested a brand new hearing. The case relates to a petition filed by an eighty-year-old eighth-year-old, requesting a correction of income records in Nanajipur village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The special court for taxation rejected her request on February 2, 2021, and the petitioner believed it was arbitrary. At the initial hearing, the judge found that the Special Court handled the case without providing a chance to hear. Therefore, the court revoked the court’s ruling and withdrew the matter back to new deliberations, directing officials to provide fair hearings and handling to all parties within three months. Taking non-compliance seriously, the judge sought explanation from respondents because they failed to act in accordance with judicial orders.
