
BRS plea on denial of permission for protest adjourned
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Monday adjourned to Tuesday the hearing of a lunch motion petition filed by Bohnagiri Devender, Nalgonda town president of the BRS challenging the denial of permission by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) for a protest meeting on January 21.
The petitioner sought permission to organise a protest rally from 10 am to 4 pm starting at Marriguda Bypass Road and concluding at the Clock Tower to ostensibly highlight the grievances against Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy over the reduction in investment assistance for farmers from Rs 15,000 to Rs 12,000 annually.
In his petition, Devender alleged that the denial of permission was arbitrary, discriminatory, and a violation of Section 22(1)(a) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli, as well as Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
He urged the court to direct the SDPO to grant permission to hold the protest as per his application submitted on November 19, 2024. After reviewing the petition, the court directed the Government Pleader (Home) to obtain instructions from the authorities concerned and adjourned the hearing to Tuesday.
TGPD told to consider only respondents for posts
HYDERABAD: Making it clear that the candidature of other candidates should not be entertained, the Telangana High Court on Monday directed the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL) to undertake the recruitment process for vacancies of junior linemen solely with the respondents.
A bench of Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty was hearing 25 writ appeals filed by the TGSPDCL following a dispute that arose from a recruitment notification issued on September 28, 2019, for 2,500 junior lineman posts.
The notification outlined that 95% of the posts would be allocated to local candidates based on district-wise preferences, while the remaining 5% would be filled on merit.
During the recruitment process, some candidates whose applications were not considered approached the court, challenging the method of selection, which they argued violated constitutional provisions and the Telangana Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018 (Presidential Order).
Senior counsel for TGSPDCL contended that the company was not bound by the Presidential Order and that the 95% preference for local candidates did not amount to reservation.
Instead, it was a preference mechanism designed to prioritise local candidates without breaching constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 16. The appellants argued that the interim orders by the single judge had left some vacancies unfilled, equivalent to the number of writ petitioners involved.