Disposed

Veladhandi Krishna Prasad, v. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited

Telangana HC3 Jan 2012WP/34084/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order disposing of multiple writ petitions challenging APGENCO's refusal to award weightage marks for ITI qualifying exams passed before the supplementary notification date and for contract labour service. Court directed authorities to verify documents, verify E.P.F. records, and award marks within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to receive documents, cooperate with EPF Commissioner for verification, and award weightage marks within six months.

Veladhandi Krishna Prasad, Vs Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

Writ Petition Nos.33871, 34079, 34098, 34244, 34317, 34365, 34651, 34906, 34919, 34084, 34292, 34296, 34297, 34298, 34351, 34453, 34458, 34470, 34590, 34635 of 2011 & 8, 9, 26, 48, 54, 63, 92, 109, 183 and 218 of 2012

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since the issue involved is common and the respondents are also one and the same in all these writ petitions, all these writ petitions are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶5

2. All these writ petitions are filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents-Andhra Pradesh Power Generating Corporation Limited (for short ‘APGENCO’), Hyderabad, in not awarding weightage marks to the petitioners for passing of qualifying examination up to the date of Supplemental Notification dated 17-10-2011 for the post of Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) and further action in not awarding weightage marks to the petitioners in spite of availability of Gate Passes and E.P.F. records as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶6

3. Few facts which are necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:

¶7

The nature of duty of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is the same. Some of them have worked earlier as contract labour, some of them are working as contract labour and some of them are freshers who never worked as contract labour. While so, the respondentsCorporation issued Notification No.01/CGM/HR/2010, dated 05-012011, calling upon the applications to fill up the posts of 1,086 Junior Plant Attendants (JPA) by way of direct recruitment, in which, 130 posts are meant for backlog (BL) and 956 posts are meant for General

¶8

(GR). Clause 7 of the said Notification contemplates the ‘Education

¶9

Qualification’ which reads thus:

¶10

“Educational Qualifications: Must possess SSLC/SSC/10^TH class with ITI in Electrician/Fitter/Machinist/Wireman/ Welder/ Turner/ Mechanic (Diesel)/ Instrument Mechanic/Draughtsman (Mechanical)/2years Vocational Course in Electrician Trade as on 01-01-2011.”

¶11

Clause 9 of the Notification, dated 05-01-2011, reads thus:

¶12

9.Selection Procedure:

¶13

A. Criteria for preliminary evaluation:

¶14

Total Marks = 100.

¶15

Weitage Marks:

¶16

(i) 30 marks will be allocated against marks obtained in the qualifying examination of ITI (marks secured in ITI X 30/total marks in ITI)

¶17

(ii) Weightage up to 10 Marks will be given for passing of qualifying examination of ITI up to the date of notification @ 2 marks for each completed year ;of passing. Fraction of months will be ignored.

¶18

(iii) Service Weightage to contract labour worked in Power Generating Stations of APGENCO:

¶19

*** service for more than 6 months … 10 Marks * Service for less than 6 months … 5 marks.**

¶20

Note:

¶21

The candidates claiming experience in APGENCO have to submit Gate Pass/Annual Account Slip of EPF i.e. minimum one gate pass for the candidates who are claiming as Contract Labour to the proof of working for less than 6 months or PF membership and minimum of 7 Gate Passes or Annual Accounts Slip of EPF for the candidates claiming to have worked as Contract Labour for more than 6 months.

¶22

Thereafter, the respondents also issued supplementary notification, dated 17-10-2011. Clause 9 of the Notification, dated 17-10-2011, reads thus:

¶23

9.Selection Procedure:

¶24

B. Criteria for preliminary evaluation:

¶25

Total Marks = 100.

¶26

Weitage Marks:

¶27

(i) 30 marks will be allocated against marks obtained in the qualifying examination of ITI (marks secured in ITI X 30/total marks in ITI)

¶28

(ii) Weightage up to 10 Marks will be given for having passed the qualifying examination of ITI before the date of notification @ 2 marks for each completed year of passing. Fraction of months will be ignored.

¶29

(iii) Service Weightage to contract labour worked in Power Generating Stations of APGENCO:

¶30

Service for more than 6 months … 10 Marks * Service for less than 6 months … 5 marks.

¶31

Note:

¶32

The candidates claiming experience in APGENCO have to submit Gate Pass/Annual Account Slip of EPF i.e. minimum one gate pass for the candidates who are claiming as Contract Labour to the proof of working for less than 6 months and minimum of 7 Gate Passes or Annual Accounts Slip of EPF for the candidates claiming to have worked as Contract Labour for more than 6 months.

¶33

The difference between these two Notifications dated 05-01-2011 and 17-10-2011 is with regard to Clause 9-A (ii). In the earlier notification, 9-A (ii) contemplated that the weightage up to 10 marks will be given for passing on qualifying examination of ITI up to the date of notification @ 2 marks for each completed year of passing. Fraction of months will be ignored. Whereas, in the later notification, 9-A (ii) is contemplated that weightage up to 10 marks will be given for having passed the qualifying examination of ITI before the date of notification @ 2 marks for each completed year of passing. Fraction of marks will be ignored. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petitions.

¶34

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents-Corporation and perused the record.

¶35

5. The entire issue is relating to the aspect of allotment of weightage marks basing on qualifying the examinations and also basing on the services rendered by the contract labour in the respondents-corporation.

¶36

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the candidates who applied for the examination pursuant to the earlier notification i.e. 05-01-2011, have been denied the appropriate marks comparatively with the candidates applied pursuant to the subsequent notification i.e. 17-01-2011. He further contended that on account of non-awarding of the weightage marks basing on the ITI Certificate till the date of supplementary notification i.e.

¶37

17-10-2011, the persons who made the applications pursuant to the earlier Notification, dated 05-01-2011, have lost the required weightage marks. He further contended that the petitioners have submitted all the necessary documents to prove their experience as far as the contract labour is concerned. With regard to the annual account slips of the EPF is concerned, the petitioners could not submit any documentary evidence, but they have mentioned E.P.F. numbers. But the respondents-Corporation without verifying the same and without referring the records available with the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, refused to award the appropriate marks to the petitioners. Thereby, they lost the opportunity of getting the appropriate weightage marks for which they are entitled to.

¶38

7. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents-Corporation would submit that insofar as Clause 2 of both the Notifications dated 05-01-2011 and 17-01-2011, and the anomaly therein, with regard to the allotment of weightage marks is concerned, basing on the qualifying examination of I.T.I, the respondentsCorporation is taking steps to take appropriate decision to consider the

¶39

cases of the petitioners for allotment of appropriate weightage marks to the petitioners till the date of subsequent notification i.e. 17-10-2011 and the same is in the process. With regard to Clause 9-A (iii) is concerned, that is service weightage to contract labour worked in the Power Generating Station of APZENCO, 10 marks will be awarded for completion of more than six months’ service, and 5 marks will be awarded for completion of less than six months’ service. The learned standing counsel for the respondents-Corporation would further submit that the authorities have tried their best to verify all the documents submitted by the petitioners for awarding appropriate marks. He further submits that the procedure of making application was by way of on line and many of the applications were not accepted for the reason that the documents that were filed by the petitioners along with their applications are found to be improper. Therefore, the petitioners were given the opportunity of making applications manually, pursuant to which, a scrutiny committee has been constituted to consider the documents to be filed by the petitioners. Therefore, he seeks that appropriate time may be granted for the respondents-Corporation to resolve the issue involved in these writ petitions for awarding weightage marks towards their respective qualifications till the date of supplementary notification i.e.

¶40

17-10-2011 and also the weightage marks provided the service weightage basing on the records to be submitted by the candidates.

¶41

8. The issue involved in these writ petitions is not only relating to the petitioners but also the candidates who made the applications in pursuance of the both notifications referred to above and the candidates appeared for the written examinations having the grievance that they were not awarded the appropriate weightage marks towards the qualification and service.

¶42

9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned

¶43

counsel appearing for all the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

¶44

1. The respondents are directed to receive original documents to be submitted by the petitioners till 15-01-2012.

¶45

2. The respondents are further directed to receive the documents not only from the petitioners but also all the candidates who appeared for the examinations conducted by the respondents-Corporation in connection with the recruitment to the post of Junior Plant Attendant as they are also entitled for submitting the documents.

¶46

3. In respect of the documents relating to the E.P.F. are concerned, the Regional Employees’ Provident Fund Commissioner’s office is directed to cooperate with the 1^st and 2^nd respondents-Corporation in verification of the particulars of E.P.F. numbers basing on the E.P.F. slips to be submitted or being submitted or basing on the EPF numbers furnished or to be furnished by the petitioners.

¶47

4. With regard to awarding of weightage marks basing on qualifying examination of ITI is concerned, the respondents are directed to take appropriate decision in this regard.

¶48

5. The candidates i.e. the petitioners and others who have appeared for the examination alone are allowed to submit their original relevant documents in the respective centers in which they appeared for the examination.

¶49

6. The respondents are directed to fix the last date of receipt

¶50

of documents to be received from the petitioners and all other eligible candidates and notify the same.

¶51

7. The respondents are further directed to complete the above exercise as early as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from today so as to enable them to give effect the notifications for recruitment of the selected candidates in accordance with law.

¶52

10. With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶53

______________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE: 03.01.2012 kvr

Veladhandi Krishna Prasad, v. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veladhandi Krishna Prasad, v. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambhadur Singh and Another Vs Prl.Secy Higher Edun. and 2 Others

B. Rajesh, Vs The Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

Guda Pruthviraju, Vs The Government of Ap.

T.Ramesh, Vs The a.P.Genco, Rep.by its Managing Director

Md. Sharfuddin Vs The Apgenco

P. Suresh Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited