Telangana High Court quashes PIL on constable test
A panel of two judges comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhasker Reddy disposed of a PIL questioning qualifying marks
Hyderabad: A panel of two judges comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhasker Reddy disposed of a PIL questioning qualifying marks set for the examination for Transport and Prohibition and Excise Constables.
The panel was dealing with a PIL filed by Mancharla Vishnu Vardhan a practising advocate. The petitioner questioned the action of the Police Department in fixing 30% as the qualifying marks for all categories in the preliminary written test with negative marks and reducing 20 marks for OCs from 80 to 60, 10 marks for BCs from 70 to 60 and 0 marks for SC/ST for the post of Transport and Prohibition and Excise Constables.
The petitioner contended that this created unequal level for different social categories. He sought a direction to implement relaxation in qualifying marks as 30 % for OCs, 25% for BCs and 20 % for SC/ST/Ex-Servicemen. The panel observed that the petitioner was not an effected person and did not have any person interested in the matter. The panel while leaving it open for affected persons to approach the court, dismissed the present petition.
Directive to Municipality on illegal religious construction
The same panel found fault with the petitioner for directly approaching the court and not waiting for the municipal authorities to consider the petitioner’s application. The panel was dealing with an appeal filed by Syed Kaleemuddin against an order of a single judge.
Earlier, A K Township Residents and Plot Owners Association filed a writ petition questioning the Shamshabad Municipality for not taking action against their representation against illegal encroachment and attempts to raise a religious structure (mosque) by private respondents over the public place at plot no.143 at Shamshabad Municipality, R.R District. A single-judge bench recorded the submission of the standing counsel for the municipality.
The counsel informed the court that after receiving the said complaint authorities visited the site and asked private respondents to stop construction. The single judge had directed the municipality authorities to consider the complaint and take appropriate action within 6 weeks. The appellant in his appeal contended that the single judge at the time of admission stage disposed of the writ petition without even ordering notice to the private respondents.
The panel disposed of the writ appeal by directing the Commissioner, Shamshabad Municipality, to consider the representation and objections of all other necessary parties including the appellant and take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
