Writ petitioners, contract labourers in Nalgonda, sought absorption based on 2011 agreements. The Court held that since they did not apply for earlier 2006-2007 vacancies covered by a previous Division Bench order, their claims failed and writ petitions were dismissed.
No order as to costs.
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.
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
Writ Petition Nos.22655, 22669, 22696, 22697 & 22703 of
2011
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners are working as Contract Labour in various substations in Nalgonda District. It is stated that an agreement was entered into between the management of the Distribution Company and the Union of Employees, on 25-06-2011, to the effect that the case of the contract labour would be considered for absorption or regularization in the suitable posts. The petitioners contend that recently the Government sanctioned quite large number of posts and steps are being taken to fill the said posts. Their grievance is that the respondents are not considering their cases, as provided for under the agreement. Reference is made to the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.1434 of 2008.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The notification to fill quite large number of Junior Linemen on contractual basis was issued in the year 2006, and supplementary notification, in the year 2007. The selection process was carried out. Large number of writ petitions were filed challenging the selections. The Writ Petitions were allowed, holding that the interpretation placed by the respondents upon clause 6(iv)(c) of the notification is not proper. The respondents filed W.A.No.1434 of 2008. A Division Bench of this Court found that irregularities were committed. However, it was directed that the future vacancies, to the extent the meritorious
candidates were denied selection; shall be filled. That obviously means that the consideration shall be only of those persons, who submitted applications in response to the earlier notifications; were eligible to be appointed, but were denied appointment on account of the interpretation of clause 6(iv)(c) of the notification. Admittedly, the petitioners do not belong to that category. They did not even submit the applications in response to the notifications issued in the years 2006 and 2007.
The writ petitions are bereft of any merit, and they are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Dt.11-08-2011.
KO
3 issues framed by the court
Whether contract labourers who did not apply for vacancies in 2006 and 2007 can claim regularization under a later agreement.
Whether a Division Bench order directing filling of vacancies for meritorious candidates excluded those who never applied.
Whether writ petitions challenging selection processes are maintainable when petitioners were never eligible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.No.1434 of 2008Referred¶7
petitioners
respondents
L. NARASIMHA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
