A Division Bench of the High Court comprising acting Chief Justice P.C. Ghose and Justice Vilas Afzalpurkar on Friday declared that the contempt proceedings initiated against Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) leader and MLA, K.T. Rama Rao, under the Contempt of Courts Act were dropped and that the case is closed.
The Bench took on file the sworn affidavit of the MLA, tendering unconditional apology.
Contempt proceedings were initiated against him for his comments on sections of the judiciary while responding to a judgment of a single judge against Telangana Joint Action Committee leader Swami Goud.
ADVERTISEMENT
Two Telugu dailies that reported his comments too were shown as respondents.
Notice to Centre, AGon PSU jobs
Can a public sector undertaking (PSU) resort to appointments in the name of campus interviews from a selected institute without calling for applications through an open advertisement?
ADVERTISEMENT
The issue that has serious consequences to the already-dwindling jobs in the public sector and has national ramifications came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the High Court on Friday.
The Bench ordered notice to the Central Government and to the Attorney General to respond to a writ petition filed in this regard.
The United India Insurance Officers’ Association had filed the writ petition complaining that the said method of choosing the students through campus interviews for Scale I posts was illegal.
G. Vidyasagar, counsel for the petitioner, contended that reservation of 20 per cent of the cadre posts for such mode of recruitment was in violation of several Supreme Court judgements.
The petitioners complained that the rule was amended and this was being challenged as being violative of the Constitution.
This added arbitrary power to the authorities to choose colleges, institutions and varsities of their choice and deprive the rest of the eligible youngsters from competing.
Satyam Mahindra amalgamation: CAs appointed
Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the High Court on Friday appointed Brahmaiah and Company, chartered accountants, to seek an opinion on the amalgamation of Satyam Mahindra.
Dealing with the pending petition on the issue that came up before the court, the judge pursued the report of the Official Liquidator and found it too simple and general.
When this was pointed out the counsel argued that the matter was too complex for the office of the Official Liquidator and would require an independent auditor to look into it. The judge said the independent auditor shall submit a report by January 4, 2013.