Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar sought the stand of the National Medical Commission in an appeal concerning the valuation of postgraduate medical examination answer scripts. The panel was hearing a writ appeal filed by Durgam Venkatesh Kumar and four other postgraduate students of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences. The appellants challenged the dismissal of their writ petition questioning the valuation process adopted for the October 2025 PG MD/MS examinations. Their grievance was that their answer scripts were evaluated by two valuators instead of four examiners, thereby reducing the possibility of securing a higher average score through assessment by a larger number of examiners. The appellants contended that Regulation 8.2(b) of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 provided that “the minimum number of examiners for post-graduate examination shall be four”, of whom at least two must be external examiners. They submitted that the single judge interpreted Regulation 8.2 as dealing only with the conduct of examinations and Regulation 8.4 as governing valuation of answer scripts, thereby treating examiners and valuators as distinct categories. According to the appellants, Regulation 8.4(a), which provides that “all the teachers of the other colleges of the concerned university or universities, who are eligible to be postgraduate examiners can perform the valuation of the answer scripts”, must be read harmoniously with Regulation 8.2(b). The panel expressed reservations regarding the bona fides of the appeal, observing that some of the appellants themselves appeared for the supplementary examinations and passed despite being subjected to the same valuation process which they were now challenging. The court posted the matter for further hearing directing after the National Medical Commission to get instructions in the matter.
HC Upholds Techie’s Claim for Govt Job
The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC) and upheld the claim of an engineer to the post of assistant executive engineer (AEE). A panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was hearing a writ appeal filed by the TGPSC. The dispute centred on the candidature of Palla Nishanth, who was denied local candidate status in the recruitment process for the post of assistant executive engineer (AEE) under Notification No. 12 of 2022 on the ground that the petitioner completed his primary and upper primary schooling in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner contended that he pursued his engineering degree in Telangana, thereby acquiring the minimum educational qualification within the state. Counsel for the petitioner contended that under a government order dated August 30, 2018, the petitioner was entitled to be treated as a local candidate of Telangana. Accepting the contention, the single judge directed the authorities to consider his case for appointment if he was otherwise eligible on merit. In the appeal TGPSC contended that the interpretation of term “local candidate” under the GO was already pending adjudication in a batch of writ petitions. Therefore, treating the petitioner as a local candidate solely on the basis that he acquired the minimum educational qualification in Telangana, without properly considering the definition, would be arbitrary.
Bail for bizman in Rs.7.25-cr investment scam
The Telangana High Court granted bail to a businessman accused of duping investors of `7.25 crore through an alleged iron and steel investment scheme, taking note of the progress in the investigation and the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner. The court was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Mohammed Kaiser Ahmed Ansari, seeking regular bail in connection with FIR registered at Bhongir Town police station, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district, for offences under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act. According to the de facto complainant, he came into contact with the accused and others through a friend and was persuaded to invest money in an iron and steel business operated under the name “KA Trading Company” on the promise of high returns within one year. Believing the representations, the complainant allegedly invested `40 lakh through bank transactions. It was alleged that despite the expiry of the agreed period, the accused failed to repay either the principal amount or the promised returns. The complainant claimed that the accused assured all investors that about `7.25 crore would be repaid by December 31, 2025, and issued cheques towards the liability which allegedly not honoured. The prosecution alleged that the accused and his family members misappropriated the money from investors by projecting investments in non-existent companies and diverting the funds for personal use, thereby committing offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, assault and criminal intimidation. The petitioner contended that the provisions of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act were not attracted. The petitioner pointed out that he was in judicial custody since April 7 and that no chargesheet was filed yet. The court noted that the petitioner has been in custody since April and that prosecution witnesses were already examined. The court also took note of documents produced by the petitioner indicating that the complainant and the accused were partners in the business concern. The court enlarged the petitioner on conditional bail considering the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner.
HC seeks report on pvt staffer’s sacking
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court summoned the inquiry report leading to the termination of service of a trade union leader. The court was dealing with a writ plea of R. Chitti Babu, challenging an award of Labour Court-I which upheld his removal from service by ITW Signode India Limited. The petitioner contended that he was victimised and removed from service because of his position as a trade union leader. He argued that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated to target union activities and not for any genuine misconduct. The management opposed the plea, contending that the dismissal was justified as the petitioner was responsible for disrupting production activities at the establishment. It denied any allegation of victimisation and maintained that the disciplinary action was based solely on his conduct in allegedly halting production and bore no connection with trade union activities. During the hearing, the court questioned the management regarding the basis for attributing the disruption of production activities to the petitioner. Consequentially Justice Sridevi directed the petitioner to place the domestic inquiry report on record and posted the matter for further consideration.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
