Disposed

Bandapalli Madhu v. The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 2 others

Telangana HC22 Dec 2021WP/1413/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner filed a writ petition seeking correction of his application designation and award of service weightage marks for contract work to become eligible for Junior Lineman appointment. The court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents within two weeks to verify his contract service status, with respondents to act accordingly within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a fresh representation within two weeks; respondents to verify service details and pass orders within eight weeks.

Bandapalli Madhu Vs The Telangana State Northern… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1413 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bandapalli Madhu, S/o Brahma Chary, 35 years, Presently Artisan Grade - ll, R/o H.No.9-2-63, Teachers Colony, Palvancha (Vill and Mdl), BhadradriKothagudem District, (Erstwhile Khammam District), Telangana State Candidate 1D.88005602, Hall Ticket No. 595'1352, OPIS No. SPDCL-RRo1655, BC-B, Marks 34' Rank 2613

¶8

...pETrroNER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 . The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd, Corporate Office, at Vidyuth Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District. rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director

¶11

The Chief General N4anager (HRD), TSNPDCL, Corporate Office, at Vidyuth Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District - 506002.

¶12

The Superintending Engineer (Operation) TS NPDCL, Khammam Circle, Khammam' Khammam District' Telangana state

¶13

...RES'.NDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction^particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus. declaring^questioning the action of the Respondents, in not permitting the Petitioner for correcting Row No. 11 of the Online Application i.e. Nature of Work Sub-Station Operator instead of 'Electrician Operator' and the action of the Respondents in not awarding the Service Weightage Marks (12), for the servlce w.e.f. 01-01-2012 till the date of the Notification i.e. 16-02-2018, in spite of giving the Power Milky Fame as TSSPDCL and all other particulars correctly and not calling the Petitioner to the Pole Climbing Test, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles^'14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner for correcting Row No. 11 of the Online Application i.e. Nature of Work as 'Sub-Station Operator' instead of^'Electrical Operator' and accordingly award the Service Weightage Marks (1 2) for the Service from 01-01-2012 to till date and permit the Petitioner to the Pole Climbing Test in the ensuing next Phase Selections to be held in January 2020 or thereafter, and accordingly consider his case for appointment as Junior Line Man, based on his 34 marks in the Examination held on 08-04-2018 plus the Service Weightage Marks (12) and his success in the Pole Climbing Test to be held in January 2020 or thereafter, on par with the other candidates, pursuant to the Notification No. 1 of 201 8, dated 16-02-2018.

NO: 1 OF

Petition under S 3ction 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstirncesstated in} the affidavit filed in su^{,port of the petition,the High court may b,e pleased to direct} the Respondents to c^{rnduct the Poleclimbing Test to the Petitioner in the next} Phase in January 2O2t or thereafter,^{by awardingthe',l2 Servicer weightageMarks,} and accordingly consi< er^{his case for appointmentas JuniorLiner Man, basedon his} merit in the Examinati, n^{held on 08-04-2018, plus12 Service Weightage Marks and} his success in the Po -' Climbing^{Test to be held in January 20200r thereafter, on} par with the other ;andidates,^pursuant to the^{Notificatiorr Nlo. l ol 2O1B'} dated 16-02-2018,^per ding disposal^{of the above writ petition.}

¶19

Counsel for the Petiti, rner : SRI CHANDRAIAH^SUNKARA Counsel for the Resp^{rndents: SRI ZAKIR ALI DANISH, SC FOR TSNPDCL}

¶20

The Court made the f rllowing: ORDER

¶21

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.l413 of 2020

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶26

"....to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction pa(icularly one in the nature of Writ ol Mandamus questioning the action ol the respondents in not permitting the petitioner fbr correcting Row No.I I of the Online Application i.e., Nature of Work as 'SubStation Operator' instead of'Electrician Operator' and the action ol the respondents in not arvarding the Service Weightage Marks (12), for the service w.e.l 01.01.2012 to till the date of the Notification i.e.. 16.02.2018, in spite of giving the Power Utility name as TS SPDCL & all other particulars correctly and not calling the petitioner to the Pole Climbing Test, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner for correcting Row No. I I of the Online Application i.e. Nature of Work as 'Sub-Station Operator' instead of 'Electrical Operator' and accordingly award the Service Weightage Marks (12) for the service from 01.01.2012 to till date and permit the petitioner to the Pole Climbing Test in the ensuing next Pliasc Selections to lre hcld in Januarv 2020 or therealicr, and accordingly considcr his case lbr appointr.nent as Juniol Linerran, based on his 34 marks in the Examination held on 08.04.2018 plus the Service Weightage Marks⁽ 12) and his success in tl-re Pole Climbing Test to be held in January, 2020 or thereafter, on par with the other candidates,^pursuant to^the Notification No.l of 2018, dated 16.02.2018 and^pass such other orders as rnay be^just."

¶27

AKS.I W P.No 1413 2020

¶28

Heard Sri lhandraiah Sunkara, counsel^{for the petitioner, and} Sri Zakir A1i Dar ish, Standing Counsel^{appearingfor the rr:spc,ndents.} 3. It has be,n contended by the^petitioner that^{hr: has been} working as an Electrician Operator, on contract^{basis,rvith the} respondents sin<e 2012. The^petitioner has^{firrther stated that the} respondents har: issued recruitment^{notit-rcation uide notit'ication} No.t of 2018, dated 16.02.2018, to flll up the^posts of^Junior Lineman, and h, has responded [o the said rlotitlcation.^{lt is ltrrther} stated that the p:titioner has uploaded the applicatiorr tbrnr,^ra'herein he has clearly s ated that he is working as Electrician O1;erator^sincc' 2012, and also t: has turnished the particulars ofthe^{service which he} has rendered or contract basis. Counsel for the^{petitionerconlended} that as per the aid notification issued by the^{respondents,20 marks} (maximum) wc :ld be awarded towards Service Weigirtage Marks. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has^{worked on} contract basis ;ince 2012, lhe respondents have not iLwarded^hirn Service Weigh age Marks, due to which, his case^c ould not^be consiclered lbr r ppointurent to the post of Junior Lineman

¶29

:i. Cor.rnse l i:r the petitioner contended that uppropriate ordet's^be passed in this vrit petition directing the responclet.rts to cortsider^the case ol the pet tioner lor appointrnent to the post ol'Jrl:iior^Lineman by duly awar ling Service Weightage Marks alier verilying the particr"rlars of t] e petitioner.

¶30

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents fLad contended that in the app ication form, the petitioner has entered his designation

¶31

¶32

A KS..I W.P.No.l4li 2020

¶33

as Electrician Operator, but no such post is in existence and that only Sub-Station Operator post is in existence. Standing Counsel further contended that the petitioner has erroneously entered his designation as Electrician Operation, therefore, the petitioner was rightly denied Service Weightage Marks, as such, there are no merits and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Standing Counsel further contended that let the petitioner submit a representation afresh to the respondents, then the respondents would consider the salne and pass applopriate orders in accordance with larv.

¶34

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by leanred counsel fol respective parlies, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a representation afresh to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, seeking appointment as Junior Lineman by duly taking into account the service rendered by him as Electrician Operation on contract basis. Upon such a representation being received, the respondents shall consider and verify whether the petitioner has worked as Operator on contract basis or not and pass appropriate orders in another eight weeks thereafter.

¶35

With the above directions, the wlit petition is disposed ofl. No COSTS

¶36

Pending miscellaneous petitions, il any, shall stand closed

¶37

Sd/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

SECTION OFFICER ^/'

¶40

To, 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana State Northern^Power Distribution Company Ltd,,Corporate Office, at Vidyuth^{Bhavan, Nakkalagutta,} Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District. 2 The Chief General Manager (HRD), TSNPDCL, Corporate^{Office, at Vidyuth} Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban^{District- 506002.}

¶41

Con[J* '

¶42

(

¶43

3 The Superinten, ing Engineer (Operation) TS NPDCL, Khammarn Circle, Khammam, Kh. mmam District, Telangana Stale 4 One CC to Sri^, )handraiah Sunkara, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to Sri Z akir Ali Danish, SC for TSNPDCL [OPUC] 6 Two CD Copies 7 One Spare Cop r I 111 k

I !

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211212021

ORDER

WP.No.1413 of²⁰²⁰

.ttrE S 1a r€ o
6,
'r
q
z
c) 12 Jl\N 2022
)
'/t, t2'
\i \ - f),:^6.,-r',''
'+---=--

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

,, * \o @

Bandapalli Madhu v. The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandapalli Madhu v. The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 2 others

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

T Saritha and 3 Others, Vs Chief Secy., Rural Poverty Hyd., and 4 Others

Mohd. Khalid Sarwar, Vs The State of Telangana

Gangam Shekar Vs The State of Telangana

Jadhav Vasram Vs The District Collector and Chair Person Special Dsc 2011

Dr. M.L.S. Ramakanta Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. B. Kisatamma Vs The State of Telangana