Dismissed

Abdul Rasheed v. The Ap Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC21 Aug 2012WP/16621/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for absorption into a regular cadre. Despite a prior order in favor of the policy governing absorption, the Court refused relief due to the petitioner's excessive delay of 13 years and his age making him unsuitable for the physical duties of the post.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs.

Abdul Rasheed Vs The Ap Transmission… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 16621 OF 2012

¶5

Between:

¶6

Abdul Rasheed … Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

The A.P.Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following:

¶10

O R D E R :

¶11

This writ petition is instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the in-action of the respondents in not absorbing the writ petitioner against any suitable post in terms of the policy decision in BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 as illegal and also for declaring the proceedings of the second respondent, Superintendent Engineer (Operations), AP Transco Limited, Karimnagar, dated 15.09.1999 as illegal.

¶12

The petitioner appears to have been engaged by Gram Panchayath, Mootapally Village, Raikal Mandal, Karimnagar District, as a Village Electricity Worker under Special Employment Scheme. He has been appointed as a Village Electricity Worker on remuneration of Rs.150/- per month, as per the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, which was forwarded to the Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), North, Karimnagar on 29^th February, 1988. While the petitioner was continuing as a Village Electricity Worker, an agreement was struck between the former A.P. State Electricity Board (which was since bifurcated into Andhra Pradesh Generation Corporation and Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation) and its recognized trade unions, wherein it is agreed to fill up 50% of the vacancies in the initial recruitment cadres with Ex. Casual labour, Village Electricity Workers and Contract labour who have been engaged in other than 33 abolished categories. With a view to give effect to this resolution, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board passed orders through BP. Ms.No.36, dated 18^th May, 1997 for the purpose of absorption of the candidates against 50% vacancies in the initial recruitment cadres. Since, the petitioner was not called for interview notwithstanding his eligibility, he filed the Writ Petition No.34958 of 1997 and that writ petition was disposed of on 13.12.1997 by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the orders contained in BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 provided he is eligible for absorption. A notification was issued subsequently by the Superintendent Engineer (Operations), Karimnagar, through publication in newspaper calling for seven candidates to appear for

¶13

interview at 10.30 a.m on 23.03.1998. The writ petitioner is one of those seven. He attended the interview. But, however, the second respondent through his communication dated 15.09.1999 rejected the candidature on account that he was not qualified for appointment as a Junior Line Man as he was not on the rolls as on the crucial date of 18^th May, 1997.

¶14

There is no dispute that the writ petitioner did receive this communication dated 15.09.1999. However,

¶15

Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would strenuously urge that entertaining W.P.No.1071 of 2000, the learned Chief Justice of this Court by his Judgment dated 7^th February, 2007 held that the policy contained in BP Ms.No.36 dated 18^th May, 1997 does not restrict the zone of eligibility to the persons who were employed as contract labour as on 18.05.1997. The Learned Chief Justice has also further held that the cut-off date specified in BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 and other various circulars issued by the Board has bearing only in the context of determination of total number of vacancies which could be filled by considering the candidature of eligible Ex-Casual Labour, Village Electricity Workers and Contract Labour, but not for the purpose of determination of eligibility. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also pointed out that

¶16

this view of the learned Chief Justice has been subsequently upheld by a Division Bench by the Judgment rendered on 7^th December, 2010 in Writ Appeal

¶17

No.1025 of 2009. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the reason cited for rejection of the candidature of the writ petitioner being an illegal one, the candidature of the writ petitioner deserves to be considered for absorption afresh.

¶18

Per contra, Mr.P.Laxma Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would urge that all the posts which have been set apart for the purpose of absorption against 50% of initial recruitment cadre have been filled up by considering the cases of suitable and eligible categories of employees such as Ex.Casual Labour, Contract Labour and Village Electricity Worker and there are no vacancies of Junior Line Man available

¶19

for the purpose of absorption of writ petitioner as of now. It was also further urged by the learned Standing Counsel that pursuant to the dismissal of the Writ Appeal No.1025 of 2009, the case of Sri P.Laxmirajam, S/o.Bugulaiah was considered and he was appointed. But however, the learned Standing Counsel would urge that the case of Sri Laxmirajam, S/o.Bugulaiah was pending as on the date when the Board has issued orders subsequently contained in proceedings TOO.Ms.No.179 dated 30^th August, 2006, reviewing the entire fact situation arising out of the orders passed in BP Ms.No.36, dated 18^th May, 1997 and withdrawn those guidelines subject to the out come of the cases pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as well as Supreme Court of India and for that matter any other court. Since, the case of Sri P.Laxmirajam, S/o.Bugulaiah was pending as on the date TOO.Ms.No.179, dated 30^th August, 2006 was issued, his case has been taken up for consideration after the Judgment is rendered by this Court in W.A.No.1025 of 2009.

¶20

There is considerable amount of force in the submission made by Sri P.Laxma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel that after the orders were passed in TOO.Ms.No.179, dated

¶21

30^th August, 2006, the fact situation arising out of the implementation of the scheme announced in BP.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 has been thoroughly reviewed and the said scheme has been withdrawn. If the case of the petitioner was pending like that of Sri P.Laxmirajam, S/o.Bugulaiah, it would have been entirely a different matter. But in the instant case, after the petitioner’s claim was rejected in September, 1999, he preferred to approach this Court only on 5^th June, 2012 i.e., nearly after 13 long years. For the sheer delay and laxity on the part of the writ petitioner, coupled with the fact that the orders passed by the Board through BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 stood withdrawn by the subsequent orders passed in TOO.Ms.No.179, dated

¶22

30^th August, 2006, the relief claimed in this writ petition cannot be granted. This is rather sad that the petitioner preferred to sleep over his rights. Added to that, he has already crossed more than 50 years of age and hence, I consider that ends of justice would not be sub-served effectively if

¶23

his case was to be considered for appointment as of now. The post of Junior Line Man requires, as a part of his duty, climbing of electricity poles and attending to the work there. Therefore, the productivity of the employment, as he already crossed 50 years of age, cannot be as much as can be accepted from that of any other young person, who is less than 35 years of age, the maximum prescribed for regular recruitment. For these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition, but however, without costs.

¶24

______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: 21-08-2012. KVS

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.16621 OF 2012

¶27

August 21, 2011

¶28

kvs

Abdul Rasheed v. The Ap Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rasheed v. The Ap Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishram Das, S/o Sri Sudha Das, Vs Shri Gopal Gupta, S/o Not known

K.Jayaprakash, Vs Sri S.Prasada Rao

P. Dasarath Naik Vs Sri Prasada Rao IPS

Smt. Usha Rani Vs Sri Salman Arogya Raj

Md.Ghouse Pasha Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Y.Jaya Raju Guntur Dist and 6 Ors. Vs S.A.P. Its Prl Sec to Govt Edu DEPTAND2