Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court opened Monday the ground for the recruitment of police officers by allowing the state government and the National Police Recruitment Commission to complete the process. He indicated that the nominations would be submitted to the final result of the petition. A Divisional Court comprising interim Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Judge Shameem Akhter heard a LIP by a Srinivas Goud who argued that there were irregularities in the recruitment process.
The government assured the high court that it would not issue letters of appointment to 188 home guards who had scored less than 80 points in the open category.
The bench asked Advocate General K. Ramakrishna Reddy to place the list of district notes in the test, ranks and cut-off points for the reserved categories. The GA told the court that there was a quota for home guards; As part of their quota, they were housed in the open category.
The bench stated that it would not be appropriate to receive home guards who were awarded 63 points in the general category where the cut-off mark was 80. Mr. G. Vidyasagar, Senior Counsel for the board, said that the Recruitment was undertaken in accordance with Rules and Procedures. Mr. Sarasani Satyam Reddy, Senior Advisor, appearing for the petitioner, said there was total confusion in the ranking and that the board had not followed the procedure to determine the ranks. The court ordered the GA to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks.
No increase in market value:
The state government told the Hyderabad High Court that it made a political decision not to revise the market value of the land. Advocate General K. Ramakrishna Reddy said that the Commissioner and Inspector General of the Department of Stamps and Registration had told the government that the property market had picked up and the rate of growth. He filed a memorandum issued by the Special Secretary General of the Department of Revenue to a Divisional Court including Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Judge Shameem Akhter.
The court considered a public interest litigation filed by former Congressman Kodanda Reddy challenging the respondents’ inaction in reviewing and updating the market value of the lands in the areas Rural areas. According to the memo, the Registrar said there was no reason to revise upward market values in 2014 and 2015 as they could have reduced growth. After the demonetization, the receipts from the registration decreased.
The Commissioner stated that “real estate values can be streamlined … it may not be appropriate to revise market values at this stage.” The court then asked Mr. Kodanda Reddy to object to the Memo and adjourned the case to next week.
HC admits triple plea talaq:
The High Court of Hyderabad hosted on Monday the petitions of city residents Mehreen Noor and Syeda Hina Fathima who had challenged the “triple talaq” pronounced by their husbands from the United States on WhatsApp, the social media platform. Judge A. Ramalingeswara Rao issued notices to their husbands, Osman Qureshi and Fayazuddin Qureshi. The judge also sent notifications to the Center, the State Government and the TS Wakf Commission, asking them to explain the measures taken to protect women against illegal means of divorce.
Counsel for the applicants, Mukheed, stated that the Supreme Court and various high courts had held that a unilateral judgment without proper advice and without good cause was wrong in law and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. He urged the court to order the State and the Center to set guidelines and make standard orders to prevent illegal methods while pronouncing divorce. He requested a directive from the Wakf commission to prevent qazis from issuing divorce certificates in cases where talaq is granted by illegal means on social media, internet and telephone or mobile phone.
click here for latest telangana news
The Wakf council advised the court that the Center had requested recommendations from the Law Commission of India regarding triple talaq. To that, Judge Ramalingeswara Rao stated that it would not be appropriate for the court to grant an order. The case was adjourned for four weeks. The court said there were civil remedies for the expulsion of the petitioners.