Allowed

G v. Rangaiah v the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Aug 2024WP/30317/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Writ Petitions challenging APGENCO's exclusion of uniformed service employees from transfer posts. Relying on statutory service regulations and precedents, the court declared the bar arbitrary and directed consideration of the petitioners' cases under a new circular.

What did the court decide?

Impugned circulars imposing bar set aside; petitioners directed to be considered for respective posts under Circular Memo dated 28.06.2024.

G v Rangaiah Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos: 30128 & 30317 of 2022

¶5

WRIT PETITION No: 30128 of 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

K.Naresh, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 31 years R/o-Plot.No.405, Samabasiva Enclave, Jayapradanagar,_Guntupalli, NTR District.

¶8

R/o-UD/LD-639,

¶9

1. K.Narendra, S/o.Venkataramana, Aged 29 years 13’Colony, VTPS, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District.

¶10

K.S.Venkatesh, S/o.K.Veerabhadra Rao, Aged 31 years,^R/o-UD/LD- 273, B-Colony, 'B' Colony, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District.

¶11

B.Koteswara Rao, S/o.B.Raghupathi, Aged 33 years. R/0-F1-2, ’B’ Colony, S.D.S.T.P.S, Nellore.

¶12

A.Sundhar Singh, S/o. Sambaiah, Aged 32 years R/o17-67 Damelavari Street, Kondapalli, NTR District. R/o-F-1-7, 'B' Colony

¶13

' 6. L.Konda, S/o.Kanna, Aged 30 years. S.D.S.T.P.S, Nelaturu, Nellore District.

¶14

S.K.Firdouse, S/o.Bilal, aged 34 years, R/o-F-426,^{V.V.ReddyNagar,} RTPP, Yerraguntia Mandal, Kadapa Ditrict.

¶15

M.Santhosh Kumar, S/o.Nageshwara Rao, Aged 32 years, R/oF-7, N.S.T.P.D, Satrasala, Jettipalem Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Palnadu District.

¶16

M.Ezra Adam, S/o. Vijay Kumar, aged 34 years R/o-75-2/1,15 Ambedkar Road, Out Agency, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada,^NTRDistrict.

¶17

P.Vijaya Babu, S/o.Ghantasala, Aged 31 years, R/o.D.No.4-64, S.C.Colony, Gandepalli Village, Kanchcharla Mandal,^NTRDistrict. R/o- UD/LD 295, 'B'

¶18

Bhukya Jala, S/o.Ramakoti, Aged 33 years Colony, Kondapalli, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District.

¶19

Shaik Mahaboob Subani, S/o Shaik Nagulu Meera Vali,^aged32 years, Q.NoFI-14, 3"'^ Floor, Swarnamukhi Colony, SDSTPS Township, APGENCO, Nelatur(V), Muttukuru(Md), SPSR^Nellore-524 347.

¶20

B.Naga Srinu, S/o B.Chinnappa Aged 35years, Address-^F-351 V.V.Reddy Nagar, RTPP, Kadapa District.

¶21

...Petitioners

¶22

AND

¶23

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶24

The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada,^Andhra Pradesh.

¶25

The Chief General Manager., Andhra Pradesh Power^Generation Corporation Ltd. Vijayawada

¶26

The Chief of Vigilance and Security Officer, AP GENCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Vijayawada.

¶27

The Chief Engineer, OandM, Dr.NTTPS (VTPS), Vijayawada,^Krishna District.

¶28

The Chief Engineer, OandM, Rayalaseema Thermal Power^Plant (RTPP), Kadapa District.

¶29

The Chief Engineer, OandM, Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah^Thermal Power Station, Nelatur Village, Nellore District.

¶30

The EE, Nagarjuna SagarTail Pond Dam(NSTPD), Satrasala, Jettipalem Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Palnadu District.

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring impugned action of respondents in not allowing the petitioners for appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Engineer, only on the ground that the petitioners are working in uniform services i.e. Security/Fireman as illegal, arbitrary^{andviolativeofArticle14} and 16 of Constitution of India, consequently set aside the said Memo CGM(Adm.lS and ERP)/EE(Adm)/Dy.EE(Adm-11)/AEE(A-1)/D.No.349/22 dated 01.09.2022, imposing bar against the petitioners.

¶33

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶34

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners for appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Engineer by suspending impugned Circular No. CGM(Adm.lS and ERP)/EE(Adm)/Dy.EE(Adm-il)/AEE(A-1)/D.No.349/22 dated 01.09.2022, so far it is imposing bar against the Security, Fire or any other uniform services, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶35

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶36

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim directions, directing the respondents to permit the petitioners for the Written Test scheduled to be conducted on 11.11.2022, for appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Engineers, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶37

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶38

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Interim Suspension of the Circular Memo No. CGM(Adm,IS & ERP)/GM(HR-Adm)/EE(Adm)/Dy.EE(Adm-ll)/AEE(A-l) D.No.349/24, dt: 28.06.2024, issued for filling up the posts of Junior Engineers by way of Appointment by transfer, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G V SHIVAJI

¶40

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENERGY

¶41

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. VIDYASAGAR, (STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO)

¶42

WRIT PETITION NO: 30317 OF 2022

¶43

Between:

¶44

G V Rangaiah, S/o. Anjaneyulu, Aged 35 years, R/o.Quaters.No. F-32, A Colony, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District.

¶45

M.Siva Ram, S/o.Thimmaiah, Aged 34 years, R/o.Quaters No.F-383, V.V.Reddy Nagar, Kalamalla, Yerraguntia Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶46

Nimmala Mahesh Babu, S/o.Sambasiva, Aged 34 years, R/o. Quaters No.G-9, AP GENCO Staff Quarters, Nagarjuna sagar, Palnadu^District.

¶47

Dara Bala Subramanyam, S/o.Subramanyam, Aged 38 years, R/o. Quaters No.F3-76, Nelatur, Muthukur. S.D.S.T.P.S, Nellore^District.

¶48

...Petitioners

¶49

AND -

¶50

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶51

Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

¶52

The Chief General Manager, Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Vijayawada

¶53

The Chief of Vigilance and Security Officer, AP GENCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Vijayawada.

¶54

The Chief Engineer, OandM, Dr.NTTPS (VTPS), Vijayawada,^Krishna District.

¶55

The Chief Engineer, OandM, Rayalaseema Thermal Power^Plant (RTPP), Kadapa District.

¶56

The Chief Engineer, OandM, Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah^Thermal Power Station, Nelatur Village, Nellore District.

¶57

The Executive Engineer, O and M Division, APGENCO, Nagarjuna Sagar Right Canal Power House(NSRCPH), V.P SOUTH, MACHERLA(M), Palnadu District, Pin Code-522439.

¶58

...Respondents

¶59

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶60

direction more particularly one in the be pleased to issue a writ, order or nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring impugned action^{ofrespondents} in for appointment by transfer to the post of .not allowing the petitioners Assistant Executive Chemist, notified through Circular No.CGM(Adm,^ISand ERP/DS (Ad m)/AS (Adm)/Dy. E E (Adm-l/F.No.05/2022 dt 22.07.2022,^only services i.e. on the ground that the petitioners are working in uniform Security/Fireman and on basis of clause in Appointment^{Orderimposingbar} for conversion upto 10 years, though no such condition^wasthere in the Notification dt 22.04.2013, as illegal, arbitrary and^{violativeofArticle14and} 16 of Constitution of India. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} .pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners^{forappointmentby} transfer to the post of Assistant Executive Chemist, without reference to^the years, clause in Appointment Order, putting bar for conversion for 10 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶61

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶62

that in the circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} directions, directing the respondents to permit the pleased to grant interim Test scheduled to be conducted on 11.11.2022, petitioners for the Written Chemist for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Executive pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶63

Counsel for the Petitioners; SRI G V SHIVAJI

¶64

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. VIDYASAGAR, (STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO)

¶65

The Court made the following common order:

¶66

¶67

APHC010493482022

¶68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶69

[3310]

¶70

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶71

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶72

PRESENT

¶73

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶74

WRIT PETITION NO: 30128 and 30317 OF 2022

¶75

WRIT PETITION NO: 30128 OF 2022

Between:

K.Naresh and Others

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶81

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶82

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶83

1.G VSHIVAJI

¶84

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶85

I.M. VIDYASAGAR, ( STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO )

¶86

2.M VIDYASAGAR

¶87

The Court made the following:

¶88

COMMON ORDER:-

¶89

W.P.No.30128 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶90

India for the following relief;-

¶91

“to issue an order direction or writ more particutarty^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring impugned action of respondents in not allowing the petitioners for appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Engineer, only on the ground that the petitioners are working in uniform services i. e Security/ Fireman as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, consequently set aside the

¶92

¶93

said Memo CGM (Adm.lSA ERP)/EE(Adm)/Dy.EE(Adm-ll)/AEE(A-1)/D.No. 349/22,. dated 01.09.2022, imposing bar against the petitioners and pass such other order or orders ”

¶94

W.P.No.30317 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶95

India for the following relief:-

¶96

to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring impugned action of respondents in not allowing the petitioners for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Executive Chemist, notified through Circular No. CGM (Adm.lS&ERP)/DS(Adm)/Dy.EE(Adm-l/F.No.05/2022. dated 22.07.2022 only on the ground that the petitioners are working in uniform services i.e Security/Fireman and on basis of clause In Appointment Order Imposing bar for conversion up to 10 years, though no such condition M/as there in the Notification dated 22.04.2013 as illegal, arbitrary' and violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders ”

¶97

The precise case of the petitioners in W.P.No.30128 of 2022 is that they are working as AP GENCo Constables and Fireman in AP GENCO. The petitioners were recruited through public notification, issued by the 4*^ respondent Corporation. The petitioners have six years of regular service. The 3^^^ respondent issued internal notification for filling up the posts of Junior Engineer, by appointment of transfer vide Circular Memo dated 11.05.2022, thereby calling for applications from in-service candidates. All of sudden impugned Circular dated 01.09.2022 has been issued for considering the qualification of B.Tech/B.E qualification in addition to Diploma Qualification. Further imposing bar against Security, Fire and any other uniform services due to which the petitioners are being deprived of opportunity, in spite of possessing requisite qualification that is B.Tech/BE/Diploma. In fact in the appointment order dated 10.03.2016, wherein it was specifically stated at

¶98

¶99

Clause 4(d), 10 years bar has been imposed for Appointment by Transfer into any post in AP GENCO, which is irrational and arbitrary. The petitioners have successfully completed training even in 2016 itself^{andconfirmedin-service} also. Therefore, imposing bar against the petitioner vide impugned Circular dated 01.09.2022 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶100

The precise case of the petitioner in W.P.No.30317^of2022 is that they are appointed as Fireman and working in various Thermal Power Project in Andhra Pradesh. When the notification was issued for security guards and firemen vide Notification dated 22.04.2013, there was^no condition in the notification that once the candidates are appointed shall not be eligible for other conversions for 10 years. However, while issuing proceedings of appointments dated 10.03.2016 a rider was imposed in Clause 4(d), to the effect that the candidates appointed in uniform services shall not be permitted to convert for other services of AP GENCO, for a period of 10 years. The petitioners have no option have been compelled to join and discharging duties without any complaint from any quarter. The petitioners made applications to the respondent dated 28.07.2022, 25.07.2022, 07.06.2022^{and30.07.2022} and the same were processed by the respondents 5 to 8, however all of sudden impugned Circular dated 01.09.2022 has been issued in respect of Junior Engineer imposing bar against Security, Fire and any other uniform services, due to which the petitioners are being now sought to be deprived of opportunity on the basis of such circular, in spite of possessing requisite

¶101

qualifications. The Divisional Fire Officer made an endorsement dated 08.08.2022 stating that exemption can be granted to^such condition of 10 years of his service, contained in appointment orders.^{Thepetitionershave} successfully completed training even in 2016 itself^{andconfirmedin-service} also. Therefore, imposing bar against the petitioners^{onthebasisofclause} contained in appointment order is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶102

Heard Mr. G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioners^andMr.M. Vidhya Sagar, learned Standing Counseffor respondents/^APGENCO.

¶103

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit the respondents^{issuedDirectRecruitment} vide notifications duly defining the nature of works^{tobeattendedbythe} respective candidates on appointment. The petitioners^have appeared in terms of the notification and got selected and were^{issuedappointmentorders.} Wherein as per Clause 4(c) and 4(d) of the appointment^{orders,theSecurity} Guard/ Fireman recruited shall serve anywhere in APGENCO^{accordingtothe} exigencies of their services and shall not be permitted^{toconverttoother} services of APGENCO for a period of 10 years as the^post is in essential uniformed services. Thus, it was made clear that the^{servicesareessential} and hence they were trained at Training Centre PTC,^{Anantapuramfora} period of 3 months. The petitioners have joined their^{dutiesdulyobservingthe} conditions that were incorporated in the appointment^orders without any objection voluntarily. The petitioners were never compelled to join the

¶104

¶105

services; instead they have joined the organization with their willingness duly accepting all conditions of the appointment order's. It is further contended that internal notification/ circular was issued for considering in-service employees by way of apopointment by transfer for the post of Junior Engineers from services like Accounts, P&G, 0& M etc., who are possessing diploma qualification vide Circular Memo dated 11.05.2022 and 01.09.2022 have been issued for considering in-service candidates, who are possessing requisite qualification for appointment by transfer as Junior Engineers from in-service employees other than uniform services in' terms of contractual obligation during- appointment. The said Circular Memos are being issued as per the requirement of the respondent corporation for filling up vacancies duly adhering to the service regulations in vogue and there is no illegality in issuing the same and the averment of the petitioners that they are being deprived of opportunity in spite of possessing requisite qualification^{isnottenableasthe} petitioners have joined in the uniform services duly accepting the condition in the appointment order and as per Clause 4(d) in the said appointment orders, the petitioners who are in essential uniform services shall not be permitted to convert other services of AP GENCO for a period of 10 years. In fact the said appointment orders were issued in the year 2016 and the petitioners have accepted the said conditions without any objection and working in their respective places of posting and now challenging the^{CircularMemodated} 01.09.2022 is illegal and the same is contrary to their own appointment orders

¶106

¶107

which were not challenged by anyone before any court^{oflaw.Therefore,the} writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶108

6. Perused the record.

¶109

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners^{placedonrecord} the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Somesh Thapliyal^andAnotherv. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B.Garhwal University and Another’’^^wherein it was

¶110

stated as follows:-

¶111

“42. The submissions of the learned counsel for the^{respondentsthat} the appellants have accepted the terms and''conditions^{containedintheletter} of appointment deserves rejection for the reason that it is not open for a person appointed in public employment to ordinarily^{choosethetermsand} conditions of which he is required to serve. It goes^{withoutsayingthat} employer is always in a dominating position and it^{isopentotheemployerto} dictate the terms of employment. The employee who is^{atthereceivingend} can hardly complaint of arbitrariness In the terms and conditions of employment. This Court can take judicial notice of^{thefactthatIf anemployee} takes initiation in questioning the terms and conditions^{ofemployment,that} would cost his/her job itself

¶112

The bargaining power is vested with the employer^Itselfandthe employee Is left with no option but to accept the conditions^{dictatedbythe} authority. If that being the reason, it is open for^{theemployeetochallengethe} conditions if it is not being in conformity with the^{statutoryrequirementunder} the law and he Is not stopped from questioning at a^{stagewherehefinds} himself aggrieved. ”

¶113

And also, placed on record the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in "K. Naresh and Others v. The^{StateofA.P,rep.,by}

^(2021) 10 scene

its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Guntur^{District”^,wherein} it was discussed the case Somesh Thapliyal’s cited supra and^directedthe respondents to permit the petitioners therein for written^{examinationsubject} to their eligibility and qualifications as per APSEB Regulations. Learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to pass^similar order^inthis writ petition, as the Hon’ble Division Bench rightly^{discussedthefactsand} case law involved in the instant case.

¶118

No doubt, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that having agreed to work for a'period of^{sixyearsofregular} service in the categories of Firemen and Security Guards^{andinviewofthe} specific condition in the appointment order dated 10.03.2016, the writ petitioners are stopped from claiming the subject posts. It is the contention of the respondents that as per Clause 4(d) of the Appointment^Orderswhich stipulates in the following manner

¶119

•4. a) b).... c).... d) The post of Firemen/ Security Guard is an essential^{uniformedservicesof} APGENCO. Therefore, the candidates appointed in uniformed^{servicesshall} not be permitted to convert other services of APGENCO^{foraperiodof10} years".

¶120

While referring the above Clause the appointment order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners^{thattheimpositionof} such a condition and consequent refusal to consider the case of the

¶121

^ W.A.Nos. 854 and 855 of 2022, dated 10.11.2022

¶122

¶123

¶124

petitioners for the subject posts is contrary to the amendment issued by APGENCO to the APSEB Service Regulations vide G.0.0.No. 74/JS(Per)/2008, dated 17.05.2008 which reads as follows:

¶125

AMENDMENT

¶126

The existing provisions for the post of Sub-Engineer against appointment by transfer shall be omitted.

¶127

The following shall be added in Column (3) against the post of Sub- Engineer under appointment by transfer, in Annexure-lll of APSEB SRs-Part-lll.

¶128

(a) Any in service candidate working in any service such as Accounts, P & G, Security Service etc.,

¶129

(b) A pass in Diploma in any discipline, such as Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Telecommunications, Instrumentation, Computer Sciences, Architecture, Mining etc.,

¶130

¶131

(d) Appointment by transfer to the post of Sub-Engineer shall be subject to availability of posts,

¶132

(e) Must be an approved probationer in the cadre from which the appointment by transfer is being made.

¶133

In view of the same, the petitioners in the instant case also eligible for appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Engineer and also to the post of Assistant Executive Chemist notified by the respondents. Therefore, following the decisions cited supra, the impugned orders issued by the respondents dated 22.07.2022 and 01.09.2022 imposing bar against the petitioners are declaring as illegal and arbitrary and same is liable to be set aside.

¶134

¶135

¶136

During pendency of this Writ Petition, the respondents^haveissued Circular Memo No. COM (Adm, IS&ERP)/GM (HR-Adm)/EE(Adm)/Dy.EE (Adm-ll)/AEE (A-l) D.No.349/24, dated 28.06.2024 issued for filling up the posts or Junior Engineers by way of Appointment by transfer. Therefore, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 to grant interim suspension of the said Circular Memo dated 28.06.2024. Accordingly, this Court granted interim suspension till this day vide order dated 20.07.2024.

¶137

However, the respondents issued Circular Memo dated^28.06.2024 and the petitioners are eligible and qualified, but in view of the impugned action of the respondents, the petitioners are sought to be deprived of opportunity of selection as contended by the petitioners. The petitioners were permitted to writ examination held on 11.11.2022 as per Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 854 of 2022, but result of the petitioners have not been declared on the ground of pendency of the writ petition, while issuing the appointment orders appointing^{ailothercandidates.}

¶138

In view of the aforementioned circumstances, this^{Courtfeelsthat} the petitioners are eligible and qualified for the proposed posts by way of appointment by transfer vide vide Circular Memo dated^{28.06.2024.Hence,} the respondents are directed to consider the case of the respective petitioners in W.P.No. 30128 of 2022 for the posts of ‘Junior Engineer’^and for the petitioners in W.P.No.30317 of 2022 for the posts of^‘Assistant Executive Chemist’ in the proposed filling up the posts vide^{CircularMemoNo.CGM} (Adm, IS&ERP)/GM (HR-Adm)/EE(Adm)/Dy.EE (Adm-ll)/AEE (A-l) D.No.

¶139

¶140

349/24, dated 28.06.2024 and issue appropriate orders in favour of the petitioners.

¶141

With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are allowed, while declaring the impugned order issued by the respondents dated 22.07.2022 and 01.09.2022 imposing bar against the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶142

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶143

SD/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECT ON OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Energy Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶148

The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

¶149

The Chief General Manager, Andhra Pradesh Power^Generation Corporation Ltd, Vijayawada.

¶150

The Chief of Vigilance and Security Officer, AP GENCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Vijayawada.

¶151

The Chief Engineer, O and M, Dr.NTTPS (VTPS), Vijayawada,^Krishna District.

¶152

The Chief Engineer, O and M, Rayalaseema Thermal^PowerPlant (RTPP), Kadapa District.

¶153

The Chief Engineer, O and M, Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah^Thermal Power Station, Nelatur Village, Nellore District.

¶154

8.^The Executive Engineer, O and M Division, APGENCO, Nagarjuna Sagar Right Canal Power House(NSRCPH), V.P SOUTH, MACHERLA(M), Palnadu District, Pin Code-522439.

¶155

The EE, Nagarjuna Sagar Tail Pond Dam(NSTPD), Satrasala, Jettipalem Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Palnadu District.

¶156

10.One CC to Sri G V Shivaji, Advocate [OPUC]

¶157

11.One CC to Sri M.Vidyasagar, Standing Counsel for APGENCO [OPUC] 12.Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 13.Two CD Copies

RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/08/2024

•1

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.30128 & 30317 of 2022

¶164

ml
I 13 SEr nn «»//
^ . Current Section .

¶165

ALLOWING THE WPs WITHOUT COSTS

G v. Rangaiah v the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G v. Rangaiah v the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palaparthi Kiran Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Chandrasen Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Mohan Reddy, Vs The Commissioner, Endowments Department

G.v.Sashirekha W/o G.S.K.Appa Rao, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Endowments Department)

R.Krishnappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Gangaraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh