Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the High Court of Telangana admitted that a graduate medicine student filed a written petition challenging the enforcement of mandatory government services and withholding certificates and registrations from medical education and other authorities. The petition was filed by Dr Gudavarthi Sriya, who requested the announcement of the actions of the authorities, including the requirement to have Rs 20 lakh bonds upon admission, and the requirement to enforce mandatory government services for senior residents in the 2021-2022 academic year, is arbitrary, illegal and illegal and beyond its jurisdiction. His petitioner believes that she was admitted through the all-India NEET quota, so the state government’s notice requires that senior residence services do not apply to her. She argued that Osmania Medical College illegally retained her original certificate, and the Telangana State Medical Commission refused to issue a Non-Apply Certificate (NOC) and register for her postgraduate qualification unless she meets mandatory service requirements. The petitioner insisted that the actions violated her fundamental rights under the Constitution and contradicted the Sixth Amendment Act of 2018, which repealed the provisions of the Telangana Doctor Registration Act of 1968, in connection with mandatory services after post-study. The judge released the matter for further hearing.
Pleas for rejecting compassionate jobs are accepted
Justice Euthpalli Nanda of the High Court of Telangana accepted a writ plea, challenging her daughter’s sympathetic appointment due to her marital status after her mother’s death. The judge is handling a written petition filed by Nasreen Begum. The petitioner’s case was that her marital status was unjustly rejected by her appointment, and she believed that her married son did not have such discrimination. The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the married daughter could not be excluded from sympathetic appointments based solely on her marital status, especially when she continued to live in the same family as her deceased mother. The lawyer believes that her mother worked herself in compassionate work after her husband’s death and later became a regular employee, making the petitioner’s claim compelling. The petitioner stressed that the compassionate appointment was intended to provide immediate relief to bereavement families facing financial distress. She complains that rejection is unfair unless another family member takes advantage of the applicable benefits or specific deprivation (not in her case). The judge directed the respondents to submit a reply.
HC postponed anti-requisition PIL hearing
The two-term judges panel of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Renuka Yara in the Telangana High Court postponed a hearing on a high-risk public interest litigation (PIL) that seeks to disqualify several MLAs under the counter-advice law. The PIL was submitted by Dr. Ka Paul, as a gathering of one person, claiming that elected representatives, including Danam Nagender, violated the tenth timeline of the Constitution and the People’s Act of 1951, indulged in the political deficit by conducting elections under different party banners. The petitioner seeks instructions from the Election Commission of India to strictly enforce the anti-obligation law and implement system reforms to prevent him from calling it “the commercialization of the elected office”. During the hearing, the respondent’s senior legal counsel pointed out that the coordinator of the Telangana High Court ruled on an identical issue, which was challenged by the Supreme Court. He noted that the Supreme Court heard a special leave petition and retained the verdict. Taking into account overlapping legal issues and maintaining judicial discipline, the group postponed further hearings and posted the matter until June 25.
