Disposed

Boddu Sudhakar v. The Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limitfd (Npdctl)

Telangana HC15 Feb 2019WP/1246/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition challenging the exclusion of an applicant for Junior Lineman posts due to a technical error recording his nativity as Nalgonda instead of Nizamabad. The court directed the respondents to consider the applicant's representation seeking to correct this error.

What did the court decide?

Directions to consider the petitioner's representation correcting the nativity and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Boddu Sudhakar Vs The Northern Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ABHI NAND KUMAR SHAVI LI

¶2

W.P.No.1246 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the request of the petitioner to rectify the place of nativity i.e. from Nalgonda district to Nizamabad district and considering the petitioner as a non-local of Nizamabad district and proceeding the recruitment of Junior Lineman (JLM) posts in the Respondent Corporation, causing imminent loss of job opportunity to the petitioner in the ongoing interviews for JLM as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, besides violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶5

Heard Sri S.Chakrapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Zakir Ali, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Corporation.

¶6

According to the petitioner, he is fully eligible and qualified for the post of Junior Lineman and while the matter stood thus, the Respondents issued a notification dated 16.2.2018 for filling up the posts of Junior Lineman. The petitioner responded to the said notification and filled in the online application on 16.3.2018 for the post of Junior Lineman. While filling up the online application, the information in respect of nativity is concerned, because of technical slack, the computer operator noted the native district of the petitioner as Nalgonda instead of Nizamabad and consequently the said error was corrected in the online application to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Nizamabad district.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the said mistake was detected by the petitioner about his nativity, he immediately submitted a representation to the respondents on 14.6.2018, but the

¶8

¶9

Respondents neither considered the said representation nor passed orders, appointing him as Junior Lineman by treating him as native of Nizamabad district. The learned counsel further contends that appropriate orders be passed, directing the Respondents to change the nativity of the petitioner from Nalgonda to Nizamabad, in accordance with law, and consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman.

¶10

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Corporation contends that in the notification, it was categorically stated that the entries made in the online applications will not be changed, however, the case of the petitioner would be considered, as the petitioner had complained about the malfunctioning of computers at the time of filling up the online application.

¶11

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 14.6.2018 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

______________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶14

Date: 15.2.2019 DA

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ABHI NAND KUMAR SHAVI LI

¶17

W.P.No.1246 of 2019

¶18

15.2.2019

¶19

Boddu Sudhakar v. The Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limitfd (Npdctl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddu Sudhakar v. The Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limitfd (Npdctl)

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

P. Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Telangana

Bachakura Ramudu Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.M.Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohmed Ilias Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

G.Esther Vs The State of Telangana

G.Parushuram Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation