Dismissed¶83

The Ap Power Generation Corporation Limited v. a Anil Kumar

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Oct 2025WA/622/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APGENCO writ appeal against Single Judge order directing appointment of Fireman candidate rejected for 'flat foot' - dismissed; order upheld. Regional Medical Board, Tirupati (24.05.2016) fitness opinion cannot be ignored by cherry-picking diagnosis; six years' unimpeded Fireman service cited. R. Venkatesan (Madras HC DB, W.A.No.2199 of 2001) relied on; Nallamalla Nageswaraiah (APHC DB, W.P.No.8594 of 2020) distinguished. Recruitment medical unfitness / flat foot / service law.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33416 of 2016 dated 14.03.2019 is upheld (petitioner's appointment and regularization as Fireman stands); no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶83

The Ap Power Generation Corporation Limited Vs a Anil Kumar — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶83

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 3 against the learned Single Judge's order dated 14.03.2019 in W.P.No.33416 of 2016 deserved to be allowed or dismissed. +2 more

¶51

Court's answer

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge; the writ appeal is dismissed and the Single Judge's order dated 14.03.2019 in W.P.No.33416 of 2016 is upheld.

¶81

Ratio / Principle

The action of the respondent authorities in considering only a part of the Medical Board's report (the diagnosis) to the extent of their convenience, to reject the petitioner's claim, is impermissible and irrational.

¶70

Key takeaways

When the competent medical board makes it clear that a candidate can do his normal duties, the respondent authorities cannot eschew that opinion and come to a contrary decision where the candidate is fully qualified on merit.ratio¶78
The facts and circumstances of the Nallamalla Nageswaraiah order and the present case are entirely different; though this Court is fully agreed with the proposition of law in that order on other aspects, it is unable to accept the respondents' contention in light of the Regional Medical Board's report dated 24.05.2016 opining that the petitioner is able to perform all activities normally and is fit for the required job.ratio¶78

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Battu Devanand & A. Hari Haranadha Sarma JJ.; judgment per Battu Devanand J.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, dismisses APGENCO's Writ Appeal No. 622 of 2021 and upholds the learned Single Judge's order dated 14.03.2019 in W.P.No.33416 of 2016 (Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao), which had set aside proceedings Lr.No.JS(P)/DS(E)/PO.C/472/2011 dated 20.09.2016 cancelling a selected Fireman candidate's selection and directed his appointment. The Regional Medical Board, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati (report dated 24.05.2016) diagnosed 'bilateral mild mobile flat foot' yet opined the candidate able to perform all activities normally and fit for the required job; the Court holds that authorities cannot selectively rely on the diagnosis portion of a medical report while ignoring the Board's fitness opinion - such cherry-picking is impermissible and irrational - and that when a competent medical board clears a meritorious candidate for normal duties, the authorities cannot eschew that opinion. Six years of unimpeded service as Fireman (appointed 03.06.2019; services regularized 19.12.2023) confirmed there was no impediment. Madras High Court Division Bench in R. Venkatesan v. Secretary to Government, Home (Pol-III) Department, Chennai (W.A.No.2199 of 2001) relied upon; Nallamalla Nageswaraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Division Bench, W.P.No.8594 of 2020, order dated 28.03.2022) distinguished as factually different.

¶1

[3545]

¶2

APHC010132102020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO: 622/2021

¶11

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the orders of the learned Single Judge His Lordship Hon'ble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao passed in W.P.No.33416 of 2016, dated 14-03-2019

¶12

Between:

¶13

THE AP POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIDYUTH SOUDHA, HYDERABAD.

¶14

THE CHIEF OF VIGILANCE AND SECURITY OFFICER, AP POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED, VIDYUTH SOUDHA, HYDERABAD.

¶15

THE JOINT SECRETARY (PER), AP POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED, VIDYUTH SOUDHA, HYDERABAD.

¶16

...APPELLANT(S)

¶17

AND

¶18

A ANIL KUMAR, , S/O A.GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, UNEMPLOYEE, R/O ANIMELA VILLAGE, VN PALLY MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶19

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD.

¶20

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

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 condone the delay of 340 days in preferring the writ appeal against WP. No. 33456/2016, dated 14.03.2019 and pass.

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶25

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 stay the operation of the order passed in WP. No. 33416/2016, dated 14.03.2019 pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal and pass.

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶27

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 may be pleased to grant leave by permitting the 1st respondent to file counter affidavit in IA.No. 1 of 2021 in WA.No. 622 of 2021 and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶29

1.Nagaraju Naguru, Standing Counsel For APGENCO

¶30

2.K.KRISHNABUSHAN CHOWDARY SC For APGENCO

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1.MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY

¶33

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

¶36

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶37

WRIT APPEAL No.622 of 2021

¶38

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

¶39

This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 14.03.2019 in W.P.No.33416 of 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶40

The appellants herein are the respondent Nos.1 to 3; the 1^st respondent is petitioner and 2^nd respondent is 4^th respondent in W.P.No.33416 of 2016.

¶41

All the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for convenience.

¶42

Brief facts leading to file this writ appeal are herein under:

¶43

The 2^nd respondent issued a notification No.1/JOS(PER)/2013, dated 22.04.2013 for recruitment to the posts of Security Guards and Fireman by notifying several vacancies. The petitioner have applied for the post of Fireman in Kadapa District and have appeared for the written test wherein he secured 142 marks and upon being successful in the written test, he was called for physical measurement test and physical efficiency test wherein he got secured 32.25 marks totaling 174.25 marks and he was selected for the post of Fireman and was called for verification of original testimonials on 21.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other selected candidates was referred to for medical examination to the Medical Board of Government General Hospital, Guntur. The Superintendent of the said hospital, vide letter,

¶44

¶45

dated 28.01.2016 has certified that the petitioner has the defect of „flat foot‟ . Vide letter, dated 14.03.2016, the petitioner was informed that his selection for the post of Fireman was cancelled as his physical standards were not in accordance with the notification. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed writ petition No.9973 of 2016 before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. The said writ petition was disposed of by its order, dated 13.04.2016 permitting the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent authorities within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order requesting to refer him for re-medical examination and if such application was made, he shall be referred to re-medical examination and further action on the basis of the opinion expressed by the said re-constituted medical team shall be taken by the respondents. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was referred to Regional Medical Board, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati for re-medical examination. The Medical Board, vide its report, dated 24.05.2016, certified that the candidate is having „Bilateral Mild Flat Foot‟. In view of the same, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings vide Lr.No.JS(P)/DS(E)/PO.C/472/2011, dated 20.09.2016 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.33416 of 2016 seeking redressal of the Court.

¶46

The respondents filed their counter-affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner.

¶47

The learned Single Judge of this Court after having detailed consideration of the issue involved in the writ petition and upon careful

¶48

¶49

examination of the material available on record including the authoritative pronouncements on the issue involved in the writ petition, allowed the writ petition by order, dated 14.03.2019, which is extracted hereunder:

¶50

“The impugned proceedings Lr.No.JS(P)/DS(E)/PO.C/472/2011, dated 20.09.2016, issued by the 2^nd respondent are set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner in the post of Fireman within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”

¶51

Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition preferred the present writ appeal.

¶52

Heard Sri Nagaraju Naguru and K. Krishna Bhusan, learned Standing Counsels for APGENCO appearing for the appellants; heard Sri M. Rahul Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/ writ petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶53

Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants would submit that in the medical report it is very clearly diagnosed as „bilateral mobile flat foot‟. He further submits that the petitioner as per two medical report was found to be unfit for the said post of Fireman as he had „bilateral mobile flat foot‟. He further contends that as per para 12(b) and 15(g) of the notification, the petitioner was found to be medically not fit for the post of Fireman and as such the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and sought to allow the writ appeal.

¶54

¶55

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that pursuant to the order, dated 13.04.2016 of this Court in W.P.No.9973 of 2016, the petitioner was referred to the Regional Medical Board, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati for re-medical examination and the Medical Board, vide its report, dated 24.05.2016, certified that the candidate is having „Bilateral Mild Flat Foot‟ . Learned counsel would submit that the respondent authorities did not consider the report of Regional Medical Board, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati properly. He contends that it was clearly mentioned in the said report that though the petitioner is having „ Bilateral Mild Flat Foot‟, he is able to perform all the activities normally and he is fit for the required job. But the respondents erroneously rejected the candidature of the petitioner by issuing impugned proceedings. He would further submit that the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Madras in W.A.No.2199 of 2001 in R. Venkatesan v. Secretary to Government, Home (Pol-III) Department, Chennai , has been considered by the learned single Judge which was relied on by the petitioner and rightly allowed the writ petition. As such, interference of the reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge is unwarranted and sought to dismiss the writ appeal.

¶56

This Court gave anxious consideration to the submissions made by respective counsel appearing on either side and carefully examined the material available on record.

¶57

The admitted facts are that the 2^nd respondent issued notification for the posts of Fireman and Security Guards. The petitioner applied for the post

¶58

¶59

of Fireman and appeared for examinations. The petitioner was selected for the post of Fireman and was called for the verification of original testimonials on 21.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was referred for medical examination to

¶60

the Medical Board of Government General Hospital, Guntur. The Superintendent of the said hospital, vide letter, dated 28.01.2016, has certified that the petitioner has the defect of flat foot. Vide letter, dated 14.03.2016, the petitioner was informed that his selection for the post of Fireman was cancelled as his physical standards were not in accordance with the notification. The petitioner filed W.P.No.9973 of 2016 wherein the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in its order, dated 13.04.2016 permitted the petitioner to make a representation for re-medical examination. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the petitioner submitted his application for re-medical examination and referred to re-medical examination to the Regional Medical Board, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati and the said Medical Board in its report, dated 24.05.2016 clearly mentioned that though the petitioner is having „ bilateral mild mobile flat foot‟, he is „able to perform all the activities normally and he is fit for the required job‟, but the respondent authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner by issuing the impugned proceedings, dated 20.09.2016. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.33416 of 2016. The said writ petition is allowed by the learned single judge of this Court by order, dated 14.03.2019 by setting aside the impugned proceedings and directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner in the post of Fireman within a period of 8 weeks from the date

¶61

¶62

of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed the present writ appeal.

¶63

For proper adjudication of the issue involved in this writ appeal, it is very apt to look into the report, dated 24.05.2016 of the Regional Medical Board, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati, as extracted herein under:

¶64

„Diagnosis	- Bilateral mild mobile flat foot
Other details	- able to perform all the activities normally
Opinion	- may be fit for the required job as he is able to run, brisk walk, stand on tip toes and on the point of the heel.‟

¶65

But, as seen from the impugned proceedings, dated 20.09.2016, it is ordered as extracted herein under:

¶66

“10. In the light of the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court Sri A. Anil Kumar Reddy, is hereby informed that even in the 2^nd Medical examination it was proved that he had „Flat Feet‟ though it is Bilateral Mild Mobile Flat Feet. Therefore, as per the para 12(c)(b) & 15 (G) of the Notification he is not found medically fit for the post of „Fireman‟.”

¶67

On careful perusal of the report of the Regional Medical Board, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati, dated 24.05.2016 and the impugned proceedings, dated 20.09.2016, it reveals that the 2^nd respondent has taken into consideration the diagnosis part of the medical board‟s report, dated 24.05.2016 only, without taking into account the other details and

¶68

opinion furnished by the Regional Medical Board in its report. On bare perusal of the report of the Regional Medical Board, it discloses that though

¶69

¶70

the petitioner is having „Bilateral Mild Mobile Flat Foot‟, even though „he is able to perform all the activities normally and he is fit for the required job as he is able to run, brisk walk, stand on tip toes and on the point of the heel‟. The opinion of the Medical Board is not disputed by the respondents. But the action of the respondent authorities in considering a part of the report to the extent to their convenience to reject the claim of the petitioner is impermissible and irrational.

¶71

The learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition has considered the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.No.2199 of 2001 ( stated supra ) which was rendered in identical circumstances. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of Madras High Court had deprecated the decision of the respondents therein to deprive the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. In that case also the petitioner therein was suffering with minimal and mild bilateral flexible flat foot. On examination of the petitioner, the second Medical Board declared that the candidate has got „minimal and mild bilateral flexible flat foot‟ which may not interfere with his routine duties. Despite the said report, the respondents therein refused the petitioner therein to promote him to the post of SubInspector. Interestingly, in that case petitioner therein was initially appointed as Constable and thereafter promoted as Head Constable and working for several years. When he claimed for promotion for the post of Sub-Inspector, the respondents therein raised that objection which was turned down by the Madras High Court by observing as extracted herein under:

¶72

¶73

“8. A perusal of the said proceedings would go to show that what the appellant has got "by way of birth difficulty" is only a minimal and mild bilateral flexible flat foot. The Medical Board has given a clear finding that the said defect would not interfere with his routine duties. That is why, he was appointed as Constable and thereafter, promoted as Head Constable and the said appointment/ promotion has been made after being satisfied with the physical fitness of the appellant to work in the police force. That being so, we are unable to appreciate the reasoning given by the respondents that different fitness is required for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, Head Constable and Police Constable. Even if for argument sake, the contention of the respondents is accepted, it cannot be said the appellant is not eligible for promotion to the Post of Sub Inspect of Police. Therefore, when the appellant is entitled for promotion to the post of Head Constable, it cannot be said that he is not entitled for further promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The materials produced would also show that the minimal and minor deformity suffered by the appellant from his birth would not be an impediment to discharge his duties. Furthermore, the order of the learned single Judge relied on by he learned counsel for the petitioner relating to a case involving much more serious deformity has been accepted and in fact, implemented by the respondents. When the Medical Board made it clear that the appellant can do his normal duties, the respondent cannot eschew the same and come to an independent decision, more so, when the appellant is otherwise fully qualified on merit to hold the post in question. Hence, looking from any angle, we do not find any reason to uphold the order impugned, passed by the respondents.”

¶74

Learned counsel for the respondents to substantiate their contention placed a reliance of the order, dated 28.03.2022 in W.P.No.8594 of 2020

¶75

( Nallamalla Nageswaraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department) rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. In the said case the petitioner therein is having „flat foot to the

¶76

¶77

right leg‟ and he is seeking appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (AMVI). The said writ petition was dismissed observing that the person having „flat foot‟ will not have grip while walking or running with „flat foot‟, thereby, it becomes hindrance to discharge his duties as AMVI and when the post of AMVI is not sedentary job, „flat foot‟ of this petitioner certainly will come in the way in discharging duties by this petitioner and consequently, it is difficult to discharge his duties with „flat foot‟ as enumerated in Andhra Pradesh Manual of Transport Department.

¶78

On careful consideration of the order relied on behalf of the respondents, we are of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of that case and in the present case are entirely different, in the light of the Regional Medical Board, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati, dated 24.05.2016. Though, this Court is fully agreed with the proposition of law laid down in the said order on other aspects, we are unable to accept the contention of the respondents in the light of the report of the Medical Board wherein it is clearly opined that the petitioner is able to perform all the activities normally and he is fit for the required job as he is able to run, brisk walk, stand on tip toes and on the point of the heel. When the competent medical board made it clear that the petitioner can do his normal duties, the respondent authorities cannot eschew the same and come to such decision, when the petitioner is fully qualified on merit to be considered for the appointment of the post of Fireman.

¶79

¶80

It appears from the record that pursuant to the order, dated 14.03.2019 of the leaned single Judge, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings vide G.O.O.No.63/JS (Per)/2019, dated 03.06.2019 appointing the petitioner as Trainee Fireman in the 1^st respondent Corporation. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent vide Memo, dated 19.12.2023 regularized the services of the petitioner in the cadre of Fireman and declared the probation. It is an admitted fact that as on date, he has completed six years of service in the 1^st respondent Corporation as Fireman. There is no material placed before this Court by the respondents to state that there is any hindrance to discharge his duties as Fireman for all these six years. As and when the writ petitioner is discharging his duties for the last six years without any hindrance, it cannot be said that the minor deformity suffered by him would be an impediment to discharge his duties. Under these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the report, dated 24.05.2016 of the Regional Medical Board, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati, wherein Board opined that the petitioner is able to perform all the activities normally and he is fit for the required job as he is able to run, brisk walk, stand on tip toes and on the point of the heel has to be accepted by the respondents, as such opinion is furnished by the team of Medical Experts at their wisdom, knowledge and experience.

¶81

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere into the reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge.

¶82

¶83

In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.33416 of 2016, dated 14.03.2019 is hereby upheld.

¶84

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶85

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

¶86

_________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶87

_________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶88

Dated:10.10.2025 PGR

¶89

¶90

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶91

WRIT APPEAL No.622 of 2021

¶92

Dt.10.10.2025

¶93

PGR

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 14.03.2019 in W.P.No.33416 of 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao) allowing the writ petition: the proceedings Lr.No.JS(P)/DS(E)/PO.C/472/2011 dated 20.09.2016 rejecting the petitioner were set aside and the respondent authorities were directed to appoint the petitioner in the post of Fireman within eight weeks.¶60
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh · 14.03.2019
Prior proceeding
Recruitment notification No.1/JOS(PER)/2013 dated 22.04.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent for the posts of Security Guards and Fireman.¶43
Prior proceeding
Petitioner applied for Fireman (Kadapa District), secured 142 marks in written test and 32.25 marks in physical measurement/efficiency tests (total 174.25), was selected, and was called for verification of original testimonials on 21.01.2016.¶43
Prior proceeding
Medical examination by Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Guntur; Superintendent's letter dated 28.01.2016 certified the petitioner has the defect of flat foot.¶60
Prior proceeding
By letter dated 14.03.2016 the petitioner was informed that his selection for the post of Fireman stood cancelled as his physical standards were not in accordance with the notification.¶45
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed W.P.No.9973 of 2016 before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad; disposed by order dated 13.04.2016 permitting him to make a representation within one week for re-medical examination, with further action to follow the re-constituted medical team's opinion.¶45
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the High Court's direction, petitioner referred to Regional Medical Board, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati; its report dated 24.05.2016 diagnosed 'Bilateral Mild (Mobile) Flat Foot' but recorded that he is able to perform all activities normally and may be fit for the required job.¶63
Prior proceeding
2nd respondent issued proceedings Lr.No.JS(P)/DS(E)/PO.C/472/2011 dated 20.09.2016 rejecting the petitioner's claim, treating him as medically unfit per the notification paras.¶45
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the rejection, petitioner filed W.P.No.33416 of 2016.¶45
Prior proceeding
Respondents filed counter-affidavit resisting the petitioner's claim.¶46
Prior proceeding
IA No. 1 of 2021: petition under Section 151 CPC to condone 340 days' delay in preferring the writ appeal (prayer as printed references 'WP. No. 33456/2016').¶23
Prior proceeding
IA No. 2 of 2021: petition under Section 151 CPC to stay operation of the order passed in WP. No. 33416/2016 dated 14.03.2019 pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal.¶25
Prior proceeding
IA No. 1 of 2024: petition under Section 151 CPC for leave permitting the 1st respondent to file counter affidavit in IA.No. 1 of 2021 in WA.No. 622 of 2021.¶27
Prior proceeding
Implementation of the Single Judge's order: 2nd respondent issued G.O.O.No.63/JS (Per)/2019 dated 03.06.2019 appointing the petitioner as Trainee Fireman in the 1st respondent Corporation.¶80
Prior proceeding
Subsequently, by Memo dated 19.12.2023 the 2nd respondent regularized the petitioner's services in the cadre of Fireman and declared his probation.¶80
Prior proceeding
Admitted fact that the petitioner has completed six years of service as Fireman; no material placed by respondents showing any hindrance in discharge of his duties.¶80

The Ap Power Generation Corporation Limited v. a Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Ap Power Generation Corporation Limited v. a Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Midsea International Private Limited Vs the Union of India

Purohuth Naveen Vs Purothit (Mutha) Krishna Pavani

Smt.Naga Gowri Mani Vs Sunkara Naveen Pratap Kumar

Mungara Muralikrishna Yadav Vs Mungara Sailaja

The State A.P. Rep., by the State Representative Vs M/S. M.M.T.C.Limited, Visakhapatnam

Katragadda Koteswara Rao Vs Katragadda Lakshmi Anusha