Allowed

The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd. v. S Suryanarayana

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Feb 2024WA/475/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra-court writ appeal against a Single Judge's directions to Discoms to hold fresh written tests and award weightage marks to former contract labourers in recruitment. The Division Bench held such directions unsustainable given the petitioners' age and ended contract service, set aside the Single Judge's order, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Single Judge's directions set aside; writ petition dismissed; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

APHC010197342023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[ 3463 TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY ] TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO: 475 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

THE EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LTD AND OTHERS

¶11

...APPELLANT(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

S SURYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶17

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

¶18

The Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the following directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

¶19

“10. Assailing the said order, an Appeal was preferred in Writ Appeal Nos. 110 of 2014 and batch, and Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P. disposed of the Appeal on 03.06.2014 with certain observations. Following

¶20

¶21

the said order, this Court is also inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶22

a) The restriction of marks for weightage for the service candidates to 20%.

¶23

b) The contract labour, who are otherwise eligible to apply, shall be awarded one mark for each completed block of six months of service subject to maximum of 20%.

¶24

c) A fresh written test shall be conducted by the respective Discoms for the respective posts for „80‟ marks, by informing all the applicants at least four (04) weeks in advance before conducting of the examinations.

¶25

d) the entire process shall be completed within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶26

1. Primarily, we are of the considered view that the learned

¶27

Single Judge could not have issued the directions of this nature, in view of the short fact that all the Petitioners/Private Respondents have gone well past the age of 50 years and the question of issuing directions to employ such aged bar persons is unsustainable. That apart, the process of selection is the prerogative of the employer and the method and process of selection cannot be dictated by the

¶28

Courts and the process of selection has to be left to the hands

¶29

¶30

of the experts or ought to be in accordance with the cadre and recruitment rules or policies framed by the competent authorities.

¶31

The reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the orders’ of the Coordinate Bench, in our considered opinion, was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶32

Admittedly, even as per the learned Single Judge, the Petitioners were rendering services as contract labourers and their engagement with the Appellants Corporation ended in 2001. Despite these stark & revealing facts, the learned Single Judge has deemed it necessary to issue directions, which in our considered opinion is wholly unsustainable.

¶33

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed . Order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside. Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶35

G.NARENDAR , J

¶36

¶37

_____________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY , J

¶38

Sm../…

The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd. v. S Suryanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd. v. S Suryanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhurantakam Vijay Bhaskar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Dr.G.J.Sujnana Raju

Ap Power Generation Corporation Ltd. Vs M Viswanatha Reddy

T S Rao Vs the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M.D.Mahaboob Dowla, Vs Prl.Secy., Health, Medical dept., State of A.P.

P. Abdullah Khan, Prakasam Dist. Vs the a.P.Admn.Tribunal, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs.