Dismissed

M.I.Praveen Kumar v. The Apgenco

Telangana HC9 Aug 2011WP/22419/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding selection for Trainee Sub-Engineer posts where weightage marks were for prior contract labour, the court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on his claim for marks within two months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation regarding weightage marks for past contract labour service and pass appropriate orders within

M.I.Praveen Kumar Vs The Apgenco — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22419 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The respondents issued a notification, dated 05.01.2011, inviting applications to fill as many as 350 posts of Trainee Sub-Engineers. The procedure for selection contemplated addition of weightage marks for the candidates who have worked as Contract Labour in Power Generating Stations of A.P. GENCO. The petitioner submits that he has worked as Contract Labour from January, 2005 to May, 2006 with the respondents. His grievance is that he has not been extended the benefit of weightage marks. He made a representation, dated 21.07.2011, to respondent No.2. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

A perusal of the notification issued by respondent No.1 discloses that weightage marks are to be awarded to the Contract Labour that have worked in the Power Generating Stations. If the service is more than six months, ten marks are to be added and if it is less than six months, five marks are to be added.

¶7

The applications are to be submitted online. Column No.10 contains a question “are you working with A.P. GENCO”. The petitioner understood that it is only when a candidate is working as of now, that he must state the particulars. Since he worked on an earlier occasion and was not in service at the time of submission of the application, he endorsed “no”. Taking this into account, the respondents did not award marks.

¶8

In case the petitioner has worked as Contract Labour between January, 2005 and May 2006 in a Power Generating Station of A.P. GENCO, the respondents can take the same into account and extend necessary relief. The petitioner has already submitted a representation on 21.07.2011.

¶9

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation, dated 21.07.2011, made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶11

Dt:09.08.2011.

¶12

Note: Issue cc in one week. (b/o) kdl

M.I.Praveen Kumar v. The Apgenco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.I.Praveen Kumar v. The Apgenco

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

D.Sudhakar Reddy, Vs The Registrar

M. Kurumurthy Vs The Regional Manager Apsrtc

N.Venkataiah, S/o Jangaiah, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Kondamudi Rani Vs The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company

Md. Rahamathulla Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M.Rajamani Vs Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions