This court closed a writ petition challenging A.P. GENCO's recruitment process due to alleged lack of employment exchange sponsorship, holding that an interim order passed earlier had already granted the petitioners' relief, making further adjudication unnecessary.
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 JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.1903 OF 2002
DATED:08.4.2010
Between: Naravaneni Chanderrao and others … Petitioners And
A.P. GENCO, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidhuth Soudha Somajiguda, Hyderabad and others … Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.1903 OF 2002
ORDER:
The petitioners challenge the action of the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (A.P. GENCO) in not considering their cases for recruitment to the posts of Mazdoor in the Kothagudem Thermal Power Station (KTPS) on the ground that they did not enjoy the sponsorship by the concerned employment exchange. It is their case that the same is in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v. K.B.N. Visweswara Rao[1] .
By interim order dt.04.2.2002, this Court directed the A.P. GENCO to consider the petitioners’ cases without insisting that their names should be sponsored by the employment exchange provided they were otherwise qualified and had submitted their applications pursuant to the notification issued by the A.P. GENCO.
No counter affidavit has been filed by the A.P. GENCO till date. In view of the interim order passed by this Court at the interlocutory stage, the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition has worked itself out and no further adjudication is called for at this stage.
The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. No costs.
_______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J
08.04.2010
bnr
[1] (1996) 6 SCC 216
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v. K.B.N. Visweswara RaoReferred¶12
Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v. K.B.N. Visweswara Rao [1] (1996) 6 SCC 216 · Who else cites this
Naravaneni Chanderrao and others
A.P. GENCO
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
