Allowed

P.Tajuddin, v. The Apae

Telangana HC14 Mar 2007WP/29897/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A review petition challenging a prior order that granted employment via tenure to a utility employee. The High Court modified the original order to direct the Board to consider the petitioner's candidacy only for future direct recruitment, scrapping the earlier appointment order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 14.03.2007 in W.P. 29897 of 1997 modified to direct the respondents to consider the writ petitioner's case for direct recruitment in future, if undertaken.

P.Tajuddin, Vs The Apae — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶6

WPMP.No.31905 of 2007 in

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.29897 of 1997

¶8

Between: A.P.State Electricity Board, rep. By its Secretary Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and 4 others

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶10

AND P.Tajuddin

¶11

.....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶13

WPMP No.31905 of 2007 in WRIT PETITION No.29897 of 1997

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶16

The present WPMP has been moved soliciting a review of the order dated 14.03.2007, passed by this Court in W.P.29897 of 1997, which was disposed in the following terms:

¶17

“Since there is no contest put up by the respondents disputing the factual claim made by the writ petitioner that his case has not been considered purposefully for public employment under the 1^st respondent and consequently, the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India stood violated, this Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the writ petitioner as an Electrician/Workman/Lineman/Helper within a period of 3 months.”

¶18

The respondents in the writ petition have filed this review petition, and explained the reasons for their not putting up any contest when the writ petition was heard, as they were under bona fide and mistaken impression that the writ petition stood disposed of in terms of the interlocutory orders passed therein earlier itself.

¶19

Sri G.Vidhyasagar, the learned counsel for the review petitioners

¶20

has pointed out that the writ petitioner had been held out an assurance that his case will be considered for recruitment as and when vacancies are sought to be filled in by the method of direct recruitment by the respondents in the writ petition. However, there was no direct recruitment undertaken by the respondents in the writ petition, as pursuant to their policy decision they have gone about absorbing all contract/temporary employees, and consequently, there was no direct recruitment resorted to by the Board. Even now, the learned counsel would assure that the case of the writ petitioner would be considered as and when direct recruitment is undertaken by the review petitioners.

¶21

In view of the submissions advanced by the review petitioners/respondents, the last paragraph of the order dated 14.03.2007, passed in W.P.29897 of 1997 is modified as follows:

¶22

“I have no doubt in my mind that the respondents will certainly consider the case of the writ petitioner for recruitment, provided he possess the necessary qualifications and/or the requisite experience for such direct recruitment. The issue relating to relaxation of the upper age limit, will be considered appropriately by the respondents at the time when such direct recruitment is taken up, provided the writ petitioner submits his candidature for such direct recruitment at that stage. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶23

With the above modification, the present review WPMP is allowed.

¶24

___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J

¶25

Dated:18.12.2007 Dsr

¶26

Note:

¶27

The Registry is directed to carry out the modification and issue amended copy of the order to the concerned. B/o Dsr

P.Tajuddin, v. The Apae

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Tajuddin, v. The Apae

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

K.Philip Babu, Vs Singareni Colleries Co.Ltd.

S.Umamaheswararao, Vs The Chief General Manager

K.Santhosh Kumar, Vs The Commissioner and Director of School Education

Harijana Nallappa, Vs The Dist Collector

P.Balaram, Vs The Commissioner

Sri. Rajesh, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer