Telangana HC pulls up petitioners over incomplete PIL against BRS MLC
The Telangana High Court expressed dissatisfaction over a PIL questioning the eligibility of BRS MLC P. Venkatrami Reddy, citing lack of documentary evidence regarding his resignation from the IAS. Petitioners claimed the DoPT had not accepted his resignation, making his MLC post invalid.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court on Friday expressed displeasure over a public interest litigation (PIL) that questioned the eligibility of BRS MLC and former IAS officer P. Venkatrami Reddy to continue in office.
The bench asked the petitioner’s counsel whether Venkatrami Reddy had formally resigned from the IAS or sought voluntary retirement (VRS) before filing his nomination as MLC. The court noted that no resignation or VRS letters were placed on record and remarked that proceeding without complete details would amount to a waste of judicial time.
The PIL, filed by Jay Shankar of Karimnagar and others, alleged that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had not accepted Venkatrami Reddy’s resignation as per the All India Service Rules. The petitioners pointed out that Reddy, who was then Medak District Collector, resigned on November 15, 2021, and on the same day filed his nomination as an MLC candidate from BRS.
Citing information obtained under the RTI Act, the petitioners contended that the DoPT had not approved his resignation, making his continuation as MLC invalid. Advocate Ramesh Chilla, appearing for the petitioners, reiterated that the RTI response itself confirmed the Centre had not approved the resignation.
Senior Advocate Avinash Desai, representing the Election Commission, submitted that the Commission had no role in service matters of IAS officers and that the issue of resignation or retirement must be addressed between the officer and the government.
On behalf of the state, it was argued that a GO had already been issued accepting Venkatrami Reddy’s resignation, even without the statutory three-month prior notice. The bench observed that if the petitioners wanted to challenge the GO, they should do so directly.
Observing that crucial documents were missing, the bench directed the petitioners to place on record the complete details and evidence regarding Venkatrami Reddy’s resignation or VRS. The matter was adjourned for three weeks without issuing notices to the MLC or other respondents.
