Hyderabad: Justice Ok. Surender of the Telangana Excessive Court docket acquitted two exterior evaluators accused of demanding bribes from a final-year MBBS pupil at Osmania Medical School, holding that the prosecution didn’t show the important component of “demand” beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The choose was coping with legal appeals filed by Dr Gurushantappa S. Bandi and Dr Ok. Anand Rao, difficult their conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court docket. The trial court docket earlier convicted the appellants beneath Part 7 and Part 13(1)(d) learn with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one-and-a-half years every. The allegations arose from an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) entice operation primarily based on a grievance lodged by a pupil, who alleged that the professors demanded Rs.5,000 and Rs.6,000 respectively in change for awarding passing marks within the sensible examinations. The Excessive Court docket discovered critical flaws within the prosecution’s case. It was an admitted incontrovertible fact that the sensible examinations had been accomplished on Could 11, 2002, and the marks had been finalised the identical day. The court docket noticed that when the analysis was accomplished and marks submitted to the chief examiner, the accused had no energy to change or affect the outcomes, thereby eliminating the opportunity of “official favour” pending on the time of the alleged demand. The Excessive Court docket additionally famous that the chief examiner, an important witness who may have confirmed or denied the allegation of marks manipulation, was not examined by the prosecution. The marksheet of the complainant was not produced. Moreover, the proof of the only prosecution witness lacked corroboration and not one of the different college students who took the examination had been examined, and there was no clarification as to why solely the complainant can be focused for such a bribe demand, the Excessive Court docket noticed. Within the case of the primary accused, though money was recovered from beneath a bedsheet, there was no optimistic sodium carbonate check on his arms. Within the second accused’s case, whereas the contaminated cash was present in a dangling pant pocket, the court docket accepted the defence argument that the money may have been planted. Justice Surender relied on the varied rulings of the apex court docket and reiterated that mere restoration of money with out unbiased proof of demand and acceptance was inadequate to maintain a conviction beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, the choose allowed the appeals, put aside the trial court docket’s judgment, acquitted each professors and ordered their launch.

HC seeks state’s stand on notional seniority

A two-judge panel of the Telangana Excessive Court docket comprising Justice Sam Koshy and Justice N. Narsing Rao directed the state to reply whether or not beforehand granted reduction concerning notional seniority utilized to a different batch of postgraduate academics (PGTs). The panel was coping with a writ plea filed by J. Ramakrishna and 100 different PGTs working in faculties throughout the state. The petitioners challenged the motion of the state in denying them notional seniority with impact from June 14, 2013, on par with the primary part candidates appointed pursuant to notification issued in February, 2012. The petitioners argued that the denial unjustly disadvantaged them of advantages beneath the Revised Pay Scales of 2015 and 2020. They contended that such motion was arbitrary and unlawful. Additional, the petitioners relied on latest judgment handed by the Excessive Court docket, and a Supreme Court docket ruling, the place the same set of academics was granted notional seniority from June 14, 2013, together with all consequential financial advantages. The court docket, after listening to preliminary submissions, sought clarification from the federal government and posted the case for additional listening to.

HCA’s five-year domicile rule struck down

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana Excessive Court docket struck down the Hyderabad Cricket Affiliation’s (HCA) controversial five-year domicile rule for state workforce choice, calling it unlawful, arbitrary, and past the authority of the workplace bearers who issued it. The court docket directed the HCA to contemplate the eligibility of a 22-year-old cricketer with out imposing the impugned domicile situation. The choose disposed of a writ plea filed by Rishiket Sisodia, who moved from Uttar Pradesh to Hyderabad in 2017 and since then he performed constantly in native leagues and represented Hyderabad in nationwide tournaments. Regardless of his distinctive efficiency, together with over 1,800 runs in a single HCA season, and notable showings in national-level U-19 and U-23 groups, he was immediately deemed ineligible beneath a brand new rule issued on November 7, 2023, requiring non-native gamers to show 5 years of steady domicile in Telangana. The HCA tried to justify the rule by claiming it was following the directives of supervisory and single-member committees shaped for cricketing oversight. The court docket reviewed inside emails and held that the supervisory committee didn’t situation any binding path concerning the domicile standards. As a substitute, it merely suggested the HCA to comply with established procedures. Counsel for the petitioner highlighted that, regardless of being directed in an interim order on October 4, 2024, to contemplate the petitioner’s choice with out the domicile situation, the affiliation allowed the participant to coach, solely to later take away him with out clarification. This, the choose stated, demonstrated “high-handedness” and an absence of transparency on the a part of the affiliation and its CEO. The choose criticised the HCA for “placing the petitioner in a state of uncertainty” and famous that such remedy of gamers was towards the spirit of truthful competitors and cricketing integrity.

2 cops problem denial of seniority

Justice Namavarapu Rajeswar Rao of Telangana Excessive Court docket took on file a writ plea difficult the denial of seniority to 2 sub-inspectors of police, primarily based on their prior service as reserve sub-inspectors (civil). The choose was coping with a writ plea filed by Ballagani Satheesh and Dulam Pavan Kumar, sub-inspectors of police at Manipeda (Mahbubabad district) and Palakurthy (Jangaon district) respectively. The petitioners sought a path towards the authorities to rely their earlier service rendered within the cadre of reserve sub-inspector (civil) for the aim of seniority within the sub-inspector (civil) cadre. The petitioners contended that though they had been later absorbed as sub-inspectors (civil), the service rendered by them as RSIs has been excluded for seniority and promotional issues, which they claimed is unfair, discriminatory, and violative of the Structure. The choose directed the federal government pleader to get directions from respondent authorities.