Disposed

Pathi Raviprasad, v. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Telangana HC10 Aug 2004WP/14087/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judgment bench in Andhra Pradesh High Court directed petitioners, erstwhile contract labourers, to submit qualifications to the respondent authority for consideration for vacant Junior Linemen posts on contract basis, disposing of writ petition under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit representations regarding qualifications; writ petition disposed without substantive order.

Pathi Raviprasad, Vs The Transmission… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENGTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 14087 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Pathi Raviprasad, s/o Srinivasa Sarma, Door No.10-91, Durganagar, R.R.V.Puram Post,

¶9

Visakhapatnam.

¶10

2 Mindi Srinivas, s/o Seetharama Murty, Ajantha Colony, R.R.V.Puram Post, Visakhapatnam.

¶11

3 Makana Mahesh, s/o Satyanarayana, c/o P.S.Sarma, Durganagar, R.R.V.Puram Post, Visakhapatnam.

¶12

..... PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, rep., by its Chair Person and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.

¶15

2. The Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Visakhapatnam.

¶16

3. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, EPDCL, Vizianagaram.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners to the posts of Junior Linemen sanctioned vide order passed in T.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.275 (Personnel Services) dt.1-3-2004 issued by the 1st respondent, despite

¶19

the fact that the petitioners were already interviewed and having the requisite qualification, as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners to the posts of Junior Linemen as sanctioned in the above order

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.VISWANADHAM, Advocate

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.M.Subba Rao, Standing Counsel for T.C.A.P.L.

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and 3: Mr. E.Urmila Standing Counsel fro A.P.E.P.D.C.L.

¶23

The Court at the admission stage made the following :

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The petitioners contended that they worked as Contract Labour in the first respondent Corporation for a period of 2 years. The first petitioner worked from 1211-1996 to 31-12-1997, the second petitioner from 28-11-1996 to 31-12-1998 and

¶26

the third petitioner from 23-10-1996 to 31-12-1997. They further contended that as per the orders of the first respondent in T.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.275 (Personnel Services) and T.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.263 (Personnel Services), dated 1-3-2004, the petitioners are entitled to be considered as Junior Linemen. The grievance of the petitioners is that the third respondent, though considered some candidates and appointed them, as Junior Linemen, did not consider the case of the petitioners.

¶27

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are 24 vacancies of Junior Linemen on contract basis under the control of the third respondent, and the first respondent is making efforts to fill up the vacancies, therefore, it is appropriate for the third respondent to consider the names of the petitioners also for appointment as Junior Linemen on contract basis. The petitioners have not made any representation so far.

¶28

3. In the light of the circumstances narrated by the petitioners, they are directed to submit their representations to the third respondent giving their qualifications and other particulars, with a request to consider their names for the posts of Junior Linemen on contract basis. On receipt of those applications, the third respondent may along with other candidates consider the names of the petitioners for appointment as Junior Linemen on contract basis, and pass appropriate orders as per the existing rules and standing instructions.

¶29

4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶30

10^th August, 2004.

¶31

Mrb

¶32

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chair Person and Managing Director,

¶37

The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.

¶38

2. The Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Visakhapatnam.

¶39

3. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, EPDCL, Vizianagaram.

¶40

4. Two CD Copies.

Pathi Raviprasad, v. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathi Raviprasad, v. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.D. Prasad, E-368005, Clearner, Vs The Apsrtc rep by its Managing Director

S. Venkata Lakshmi, Vs The Secretary to Government

Smt. Prameela, Vs The Senior Regional Manager

Smt. Neeli Venkata Lakshmi Saraswathi Devi, Vs The Govt. of a.P.,rep.by its Secretary, Education Dept.

Sangani Krishna Murthy, Vs Managing Director

K.V. Ramanaiah, Vs The Commissioner