Allowed

K. Srinivasa Chary v. The Superintending Engineer T.L. and S.S.Circle

Telangana HC11 Aug 2011WP/22685/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a direction by state authorities requiring a labour contractor to hire only candidates registered with the employment exchange, holding such a condition invalid.

What did the court decide?

The direction to engage only persons registered with the employment exchange was set aside; the contractor was directed to engage persons fulfilling qualifications.

K. Srinivasa Chary Vs The Superintending Engineer… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 22685 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners state that they have been engaged by M/s.Thanvi Enterprises, 3^rd respondent herein, a labour contractor, to work in a sub-station at Wanaparthy being operated by respondents 1 and 2. Some of the skilled workers engaged by the 3^rd respondent were selected as Junior Linemen on contract basis in the A.P. Transco. The 1^st respondent addressed a letter, dated 30.06.2011 to the 3^rd respondent directing that he shall fill the resultant vacancies only through the candidates that are sponsored by the employment exchange. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said condition.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

¶6

The 3^rd respondent was awarded the contract of providing skilled and semi-skilled workmen for operation of sub-stations. He is under the obligation to supply only the qualified persons. However, the further condition that he must engage only those candidates, who are registered with the employment exchange, cannot be treated as valid. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employment exchanges are not only the sources to fill the vacancies of different categories. The mere fact that an individual did not get himself registered in the employment exchange should not deny him the right to be considered.

¶7

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the direction issued by the 1^st respondent to 3^rd respondent

¶8

that the latter shall engage only those persons who are registered with the employment exchange is set aside. It is however directed that the 3^rd respondent shall engage only those persons, who fulfil the qualifications stipulated by respondents 1 and 2. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

__________ 11.08.2011

¶10

JSU

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶12

WRIT PETITION No. 22685 of 2011

¶13

Date: 11.08.2011

¶14

JSU

K. Srinivasa Chary v. The Superintending Engineer T.L. and S.S.Circle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Srinivasa Chary v. The Superintending Engineer T.L. and S.S.Circle

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

J.Venkat Reddy, Vs The Regional manager

Dr.I.Balaram Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Boddepalli Ramarao, Vs Kotabommali Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society

V. Balaram, Vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Commissioner

Dr.v.Satyanarayana, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ravula Mallaiah, S/o R. Narasaiah, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution