Writ petition by a Shift Operator seeking regular appointment as Junior Lineman under a 2012 selection notification, alleging appointment of lower-scoring BC(A) candidates. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 33838 OF 2014
Between:
G. Raju, S/o. G.Appala Konda, aged about 36years, Occ: Shift Operator, 220KV Dairy farm, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
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 to declaring the action on the part of the respondents herein not appointing the petitioner as Junior lineman on regular basis even though he was selected by getting72.77%ofmarks under the BC(A) category by appointing candidates of less percentage of marks contrary the selection procedure column III Clause V of present notification 2012 is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of the article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Junior lineman on regular basis under the present selection notification dated.2012 fourth with or
alternatively to keep one post to reserved the petitioner under the BC(A) category till final orders.
l Ar NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 42339 OF 2014)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Junior lineman on regular basis selected by getting 72.77%ofmarksunderthe BC(A) category under Visakhapatnam region in the present selection notification dt.2012 forthwith or alternatively to keep one post reserved the petitioner under the BC(A) category till final ordersofthisHon'blecourt pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAMLA SEELAM B (Not Present) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY (AP)
Counsel for the Respondents No.2, 3: VV SATISH (SC FOR APECPDCL)
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010056032014
HfIS COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 9 AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 33838/2014
Between:
G. Raju,
...PETITIONER
AND Govt Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KAMLASEELAM B Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VV SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2.GP FOR ENERGY (AP) 3. P ANAND SESHU (SC FOR APEPDCL)
The Court made the following Order:
Despite the matter being listed under the caption for
represented for the petitioner. On earlier
i occasion also, there was no representation for the petitioner.
"Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non
prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall
stand closed.
Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTI^
//TRUE COPY//
S OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED:19/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.33838of2014
foF anotS^
* 09 APR 2025
. Current «>ection
j^fSPATCW*^
DISMISSING THE W.P. FOR NON-PROSECUTION
WITHOUT COSTS
G. Raju
Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department
The Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director
The Superindent Engineer, Electrical, EPDCL of AP., Visakhapatnam Circle
Harinath.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
