Hyderabad: The two-term judges panel of the Telangana High Court, composed of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Judge Renuka Yara, allowed the Sudanese UL Uloom Education Association and others to temporarily allow students to attend various courses to otherwise deny the AICTE ruling to grant approval. The group heard about the management of society, while the others were annoyed by their lack of inclusion on the net matrix, allowing students to choose their colleges. Earlier, the appellant was subjected to orders in the hands of a judge who found their land disputes were suppressed by private parties. As a result, the single judge maintained Aicte's actions in refusing to recognize his institution located in Banjara Hills. Senior Legal Counsel D. Prakash Reddy argued that the Appellate Body has been operating since the 1980s simply due to a certain scope of ownership disputes that AICTE cannot refuse to recognize. He noted that the 2017 AICTE refused to approve institutions challenged in written petitions. Refuse to be suspended and universities are allowed to accept students' different courses. Senior attorney S. Niranjan Reddy believes that ownership enquiry or building permit disputes cannot be a parameter for AICTE to refuse to approve and include these universities in the “no admission” category. He argued that in 2017, the judge's moratorium was in effect until 2024. Without extensions, the interests of the institution and the interests of the students will be significantly affected. Senior lawyer K. Vivek Reddy appeared for AICTE, and he believes that the agency is required to fulfill certain conditions, including having a prescribed building permit and occupancy certificate issued by the competent authority. He argued that the university was allowed to operate as a temporary order without complying with the basic requirements. When a judge finally dismissed the claim, the current appeal seeks the same relief. The team observed that the institutions had been operating since 1980 and, according to interim relief from a judge, have been allowed to accept students for seven years since 2017. Therefore, the group allowed the college to temporarily accept students' acceptance and made it clear that such admissions would be temporary and subject to the consequences of written appeals. The panel posted the matter until 2.15 pm on June 16, noting that the parties must eventually argue and will not approve any accommodation or recess.
Lawyer attacks TGPSC defense
Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the High Court of Telangana continued to hear a batch of written petitions challenging the alleged irregularities and assessing violations in the inspection of the supervisor in Group 1, which was based on Nopractice No. 02/2024, dated February 19, 2024. During the recruitment process of Group I. Senior legal counsel Rachana Reddy refuted the arguments raised in the response proposed by the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) and revoked the arguments and believed that the explanations provided were vague, selfish and do not support any material evidence. Senior Legal Counsel believes that the assertion of the TSPSC that it is illogical to issue only separate hall tickets to facilitate sequencing of OMR printing and that there is no precedent in the action of conducting major public exams (e.g., UPSC), in which single hall tickets were used throughout the process to ensure transparency and integrity. She refers to the ever-changing numbers proposed by the TSPSC regarding candidates appearing on the main exam, which she believes raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the assessment and the credibility of the final General Ranking List (GRL), especially when the petitioner itself can change. The senior legal counsel also stressed that the explanation for the TSPSC's manual collection of attendance data during the main computer was a deviation from its own biometric-based attendance system and questioned whether biometric technology was actually used. She refers to the specific irregularities associated with the assessment, and she noted that the TSPSC failed to issue temporary marks in the public domain and chose to publish them separately to candidates. She argued that this confidentiality enabled arbitrary tampering, which was evident from multiple candidates, reported a significant decline after the narrative. In particular, she questioned the abnormal success rates of the two centers, namely the Center Regulations 18 and 19, both located in the Cobi Women's College. Almost 10% of selected candidates are said to be cheered from both centers. Senior legal counsel believes that this “stunning abnormality” performance is doubtful and requires judicial review. In terms of procedural fairness, she opposed putting a candidate named Bomu Poojitha Reddy in the lawsuit and held that the judge directed her to be approved as a defendant rather than as a petitioner. Senior legal counsel recalled that TSPSC had a history of paper leaks, with 18 papers previously damaged and believed that the case reflects a continuous pattern of compromise processes. Even complex violations seem to be smaller violations, which is equivalent to what she calls “passive malfeasance.” The judge posted the matter on Friday for further hearing.
3. HC drops criminal case against Uber India
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court and Uber India canceled the criminal lawsuit with the death of an Assistant Deputy Inspector (ASI) in a road accident allegedly caused by Uber drivers. The judge allowed a criminal petition filed by Uber India, which was registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicle Act. The incident occurred in March 2021 when Asi A. Mahipal Reddy (night patrol) was hit by Uber Cab near Nizampet. ASI died of injury two days later. Vehicle drivers fled the scene, and Uber India allegedly encouraged unsafe driving practices through incentive structures. The judge found no material evidence linking Uber India to crime, noting that the company operates only as a technical intermediary and does not hire drivers or own vehicles. The judge noted that there is no employer-employer relationship between Uber and the defendant driver and there is no basic element (knowledge or intent to cause death) to attract the Part 304 IPC. The judge cited the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court’s jurisprudence and concluded that the continuation of the lawsuit against Uber India constituted a lawsuit against abusing the legal process.
4. Financial restrictions without defense: HC
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the High Court of Telangana reiterated that pension benefits are not charity but rights obtained through decades of service and sacrifice. The judge strongly criticized the state for postponing retirement benefits by retiring assistant engineers despite clear rights and months of lapses since retirement. The judge is handling a writ filed by A. Narender Reddy, who retired in June 2024 after 40 years of service. Despite the processed bills and token numbers released by August 2024, the government failed to release the amount due on the grounds of lack of funds. Benefits include remuneration, commutation, shipment and GPF final payment total of 7.4 million. The government defense lawyer accused the financial restrictions, but the judge refused to accept the grounds for withholding dues. “Employees work tirelessly and often save through government-supported programs, believing that these funds will be available when needed. Delays can seriously affect their post-retirement life.” The judge allowed a written petition and directed the government to release all pending retirement benefits to the petitioner within ten weeks.
