A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ appeal questioning the legality of the 2017 notification issued by Public Service Commission for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade II. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda is hearing the writ appeal filed by V. Nandini. The appellant contended that prescription of educational qualifications and qualification wise allocation of vacancies for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade II, was contrary to the Telangana Agricultural Subordinate Service Rules. It was submitted that despite securing higher marks than several selected candidates, the appellant was denied appointment. Counsel argued that the learned Single Judge erred in interpreting the applicable service rules and Government Orders governing the recruitment process and in upholding the selection. Counsel further contended that the Telangana State Public Service Commission lacked the authority to prescribe qualifications or allocate vacancies in a manner inconsistent with the statutory service rules. It was argued that the qualification ratio fixed under the 2017 notification was contrary to the Telangana Agricultural Subordinate Service Rules and that the selection of candidates who secured fewer marks than the appellant rendered the recruitment process arbitrary and illegal. The panel directed the respondents to get instructions in the matter.
HC Summons Kollur PS Chief To Explain Closure Of Domestic Violence Case Without Probe
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court directed the Station House Officer of Kollur Police Station to appear before the Court and explain why a complaint of a woman alleging physical assault by her husband was closed without registering a crime, collecting evidence or subjecting her to a medical examination. The judge is hearing a writ petition filed by a woman seeking action against her husband. The petitioner contended that she specifically described in her complaint the injuries sustained by her and the manner in which her husband assaulted her, yet the police closed the complaint without addressing her grievances. When the Government Counsel described the matter as a family dispute, the Court observed that allegations of a husband assaulting his wife resulting in visible injuries could not be brushed aside as a family dispute .
HC Issues Notice To Narsee Monjee Institute Seeking Permission To A Law Student For Re-exam
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court issued notice to Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (SVKM NMIMS) in a writ petition filed by a law student seeking permission to appear for a re-examination despite falling short of the prescribed attendance requirement. The petitioner, Parth Singh, contended that his attendance stood at 57 per cent against the prescribed 60 per cent due to serious health issues beyond his control. It was further contended that the institution conducted classes for only 11 weeks instead of the 18 weeks mandated under the Bar Council of India Rules, thereby substantially reducing the period available to students to satisfy the attendance requirement. The petitioner also pointed out that he secured more than 70 per cent marks in all other subjects and was detained only in one paper on account of the attendance shortage. It was argued that, in the circumstances, denying him an opportunity to take the re-examination would cause irreparable prejudice to his academic career.
4. Anticipatory Bail Granted To Three Persons Accused In Grievous Hurt Case
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to three persons accused in a grievous hurt case, observing that the nature of the allegations, the weapon allegedly used and the stage of investigation warranted protection from arrest. The court was hearing a criminal petition filed by Yasaram Sai Kumar and two others seeking anticipatory bail in a crime registered at Medipally Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri district. Senior Counsel Raghunath, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the allegations were altered only after receipt of the medical report of the de facto complainant. He argued that, to attract the offence of causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon, the weapon alleged to have been used must be one capable of causing death, whereas the weapon involved in the present case did not satisfy that requirement. The petitioners further submitted that notice under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were already issued, that they cooperated with the investigation and would continue to do so. The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the allegations against the accused were serious and grave in nature. The nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, Justice N. Tukaramji granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
