Home |News| Notices To Tspsc Government On Transgenders Quota
Notices to TSPSC, government on transgenders quota
The High Court held that “power of judicial review would not interfere with the policy decision so long as the same does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution of India”.
Hyderabad: Justice K Pulla Karthik of Telangana High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC), State government and others in a case pertaining to the validity of transgenders reservation for the Group IV notification issued in 2022.
Devath Sreenu, Devath Tanusri and two others filed three writ pleas challenging the actions of the TSPSC in not providing reservations for transgender persons in the notification. Sagarika Koneru, counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the Supreme Court judgement that a separate category should be provided for transgender persons other than women, sought directions to the TSPSC to reserve posts under the said notification to all the petitioners. The judge posted the matter to June 10.
Junior Civil Judge recruitment
A two-judge bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice N Tukaramji, took upon file the writ pleas which challenged the Junior Civil Judge recruitment notification, 2024. Recently 150 vacancies were notified for the years 2024 and 2025 to the said post of judge. Dipsikha and others challenged the minimum age criteria ie, 23 years, prescribed in the notification.
The counsels representing petitioners pointed out to Supreme Court judgements which held that minimum age qualification was not a mandatory criterion for considering the candidate’s eligibility. Further, they argued that the criteria of minimum age is illegal and sought direction to set aside the same. The bench then directed the State government and the recruitments wing of the High Court to submit before the court a detailed synopsis on May 2 and adjourned the case accordingly.
PIL against officials’ transfer
The High Court held that “power of judicial review would not interfere with the policy decision so long as the same does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution of India”.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Arade and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti held so while dealing with the PIL pertaining to the transfer of the Excise and Probation Department officials out of the parliamentary constituency in the context of the ensuing elections in the State.
The ECI instructions in so far as not transferring outside the revenue district but within the parliamentary constituency was challenged in the PIL. M Venkanna, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that if the excise and prohibition officers are allowed to continue in the same parliamentary constituency, there is a possibility that they would act hand-in-glove with the political parties contesting the elections. On the other hand, senior counsel Avinash Desai, appearing for the ECI, submitted that the instructions under challenge are applicable across the country.
A distinction between the officers who are directly connected with the election duties and other officers posted in the district is a reasonable classification and has been made to achieve free and fair election, the senior counsel said.
He also submitted that the officers required to be transferred outside the parliamentary constituency are those who perform core/crucial and specific election duties.
To prevent the flow of alcohol, money and other illegal substances to the voters, the ECI has set up an Election Seizure Management System portal, the counsel highlighted. The officers who are not directly involved in the election process are required to be transferred outside the revenue district, he said.