Live
- Hailstorm-hit Vistara flight returns to Bhubaneswar airport
- PM Modi-led govt saved people during pandemic: Union Minister Anurag Thakur
- Heat wave grips Telangana, mercury crosses 46 degrees Celsius in few places
- New India believes in giving a dose, not dossiers, to terror masterminds: PM Modi
- Nagarkurnool MLA Kuchukulla Rajesh Reddy should send Malluravi to Parliament for the third time
- Awareness conference on Mayday under the auspices of Legal Service Authority
- Adani Power logs 37 per cent revenue growth in FY24, consolidated PBT more than doubled
- Rohit said 'just show us what you can do', recalls Shivam Dube post T20 WC selection
- Resignations of Lovely, Naseeb and Basoya indicate Congress high command's disconnect with ground reality
- Hamas standing in way of ceasefire, Blinken says during meeting with Israeli PM Netanyahu
Plea on FAST adjourned
Plea on FAST Adjourned. The two-judge PIL Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P V Sanjay Kumar on Monday directed the Telangana State government to explain the basis for fixing the cut-off date of 1-11-1956 for eligibility for the FAST scheme.
Hyderabad: The two-judge PIL Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P V Sanjay Kumar on Monday directed the Telangana State government to explain the basis for fixing the cut-off date of 1-11-1956 for eligibility for the FAST scheme.
.jpg)
The Bench also addressing the Advocate General said it was time the government was sensitised about the existence of the constitutional courts. The Bench did not approve of the delay in the government filing its counter to the writ plea. The writ plea was filed by D Manikya Vara Prasad Rao, former State Minister, challenging the action of the government in extending Social Welfare financial backup only to students whose parents were residents of Telangana State as on 01.11.1956, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of AP Re-organisation Act, 2014. The petitioner also sought a consequential direction to the government to follow the earlier eligibility criteria for fee reimbursement and admissions without reference to ‘1956’ as the year of eligibility.
The Bench pointedly asked the Advocate General the constitutional basis for such classification and voiced its displeasure over the procrastination on the part of the State to file its counter to the writ petition. It made clear that it was adjourning the matter because the request came from the Principal Officer of the State.
