Dismissed

Gunnam Kondaiah v. Ap southern Power Distribution co.Ltd., rep.by its

Telangana HC9 Dec 2016WP/13301/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought restraint on giving effect to a letter rejecting his application for appointment as Junior Lineman, which was submitted late. relying on a Division Bench judgment that interim participation in a test does not confer entitlement when the original application was late, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, dismissed. No order as to costs.

Gunnam Kondaiah Vs Ap southern Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

Writ Petition No.13301 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to restrain the respondents from giving effect to the letter dated 05.05.2007. By the letter dated 05.05.2007, the petitioner was informed that, as per the revised notification, the last date for receipt of applications was fixed as 14.11.2006; the petitioner had submitted his application on 12.02.2007, after expiry of the last date for receipt of applications; hence, his case could not be considered for appointment as Junior Lineman on contract basis; and the petitioner’s case was considered in accordance with the order of the High Court in W.P.M.P.No.10597 of 2007 in W.P.No.8257 of 2007.

¶5

While Sri S.Ravindranath, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the Pole Climbing Test pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, Smt.K.Udaya Sri, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, would draw my attention to the judgment in S.Kesava Rao v. Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL¹ wherein a Division Bench, among others, held that candidates who had not applied, pursuant to the Notification dated 06/08.06.2006 and as revised on 20/21.10.2006, but were permitted to participate in the Pole Climbing Test pursuant to the interim orders of the Court, were not entitled to be considered.

¶6

In view of the order of the Division Bench in S.Kesava Rao¹ , the mere fact that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the Pole Climbing Test would not confer on him any right to claim appointment as a Junior Lineman on contract basis.

¶7

1 2012 (5) ALT 744 (DB)

¶8

¶9

Following the order of the Division Bench in S.Kesava Rao¹ , the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶10

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ. Date:09.12.2016.

¶11

Gunnam Kondaiah v. Ap southern Power Distribution co.Ltd., rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunnam Kondaiah v. Ap southern Power Distribution co.Ltd., rep.by its

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

M/s. Alfa Laval (India) Limited, Vs M/s. Anrak Aluminium Limited

S. Anjaiah, Vs Apsrtc Represented by its Vice-chairman and Managing

Mr.S. Mohd Yakub Vs Tata Communications payment Solutions limited

Dasari Maria Das S/o.Late Mataiah Vs The Director of School Education

G.Rambabu Vs The Chief Engineer (Operation and Maintenance)

V.Dharma Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation