Disposed

M.Sudhakar Goud v. Ap Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., rep.by

Telangana HC7 Feb 2012WP/2671/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by contract labourers seeking appointment as junior linemen. The Court held that since petitions were already filed under a fresh notification, the petition based on apprehension regarding earlier proceedings was not entertained. Eligibility under the latest rule was assured to respondents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioners assured consideration of their candidature under the latest notification.

M.Sudhakar Goud Vs Ap Central Power Distribution… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WP NO. 2671 OF 2012

¶3

Date of Judgment: 7.2.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

M. Sudhakar Goud and others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

A.P. Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. And others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

WP NO. 2671 OF 2012

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶14

All the petitioners state that they are contract labourers eligible to be considered for appointment as junior linemen and they had earlier participated in the selection process in pursuance of the earlier notification dated 20.10.2006 and revised notification thereof. However, the petitioners were not appointed for one reason or the other. Now the respondents have issued a fresh notification dated 25.1.2012 and it is stated that the

¶15

petitioners are eligible to apply as per the said notification, even though they are not on the rolls of the Corporation as contract labourers as on the date of notification dated 25.1.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioners also states that there is no requirement as per the latest notification that such contract labourers should be on the rolls on the date of notification as was the condition in the previous notifications.

¶16

Since the petitioners stated that they have already applied in pursuance of the latest notification dated 25.1.2012, I am not able to see any justification in entertaining this writ petition on the petitioners’ apprehension that because they were not considered under the earlier notifications, they will not be considered now also. The earlier notifications and all the proceedings thereunder are entirely different. Therefore, the writ of mandamus sought for being on the apprehension does not deserve to be entertained. However, if the petitioners are eligible for consideration under the latest notification dated 25.1.2012, the respondents would certainly consider their candidature in terms of the said notification.

¶17

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶18

_________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶19

Dt. 7.2.2012 KR

M.Sudhakar Goud v. Ap Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sudhakar Goud v. Ap Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., rep.by

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

Pulaa Ison Vs The Mandal Parishad Development officer, Natametta

Merugu Kishore kumar, Vs The Managing Director

Smt. Salem Unnisa Begum Vs The Government of a.P., rep. by Principal Secretary

D.Nandya, Vs a.P.Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.

Prof. Velamala Simmanna, Vs The Honble Chancellor of Government of

Liyakhath Ali Mohammad, Vs The Government of A.P.