Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUJOY PAUL, NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Mohd. Shujath Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
Sujoy Paul, J.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the constitutionality of Rules 5.3 and 7(i) of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2023 (impugned Rules) which were brought into force in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution through G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 10.06.2023. The consequential recruitment notification dated 10.04.2024 which is making it obligatory for the candidates to be conversant in Telugu language and scheme of written examination providing for translation from English to Telugu and vice-versa without providing the option of being conversant in Urdu and translation in Urdu is also called in question in this petition.
Facts:
2. The petitioner is a practicing advocate and submitted his candidature as Civil Judge pursuant to notification dated 10.04.2024. The petitioner has studied in Urdu medium during his schooling and has not studied in Telugu medium. The 12th certificate and graduation certificate are placed on record to substantiate the same. The petitioner also filed his enrolment certificate and certificate of practice.
3. The petitioner appeared in the qualifying examination and cle
The requirement of proficiency in Telugu for judicial positions is justified for efficient administration of justice and does not violate constitutional principles of equality.
The requirement of proficiency in Telugu for judicial recruitment is upheld as a valid policy decision, not violating fundamental rights or being arbitrary.
The examination for the Art Teacher post must be conducted in both English and Telugu as per the notification, ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural guidelines.
The petitioner, having participated in the selection process without protest and having failed, cannot challenge the selection process or the validity of the proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Service Ru....
Recruitment authorities must adhere to their own notifications, and changing examination criteria post-commencement is impermissible, violating candidates' rights under Articles 14 and 16.
The mandatory participation in qualifying tests for public recruitment cannot be waived for individual candidates based on personal circumstances.
Point of Law : If Section 6 of the General Clauses Act had been applied, no doubt, this complaint against the two accused for the offence punishable under R. 132A of the D.I.Rs. could have been insti....
The court held that knowledge of Telugu, listed as 'preferable' in the advertisement, effectively became mandatory due to the conditional appointment, highlighting the importance of adherence to spec....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
