Dismissed

P.Ganapathi, Nizamabad and 7 v. Chairman, Npdc Ltd. and 3 Others

Telangana HC10 Apr 2023WP/20461/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the promotion of two respondents to Superintending Engineer posts as a violation of reservation rules and service regulations. The court held that the successful employees belonged to the SC category while petitioners were general category, rendering petitioners non-aggrieved, and ordered dismissal with costs.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition with costs. No specific relief granted to the petitioner.

P.Ganapathi, Nizamabad and 7 Vs Chairman… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ I

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20461 OF 2OO4

¶7

Between

¶8

P.GANAPATHI, S/o Narayana, aged about 56^{years, Working as} Superintending Engineer (Operation), TSNPDCL,^Nizamabad

¶9

K.Rajeshwar Rao, S/o Appa Rao, aged about^{56 years, Workingas General} Manager (Plan) Corporate Office, TSNPDCL,^Warangal

¶10

K.Kishan Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, aged about^{58 years, Working as General} Manager (RAC), Corporate Office,^{TSNPDCL, Warangal}

¶11

B.Venkateshwar Rao, aged about 56^years, S/o^{Workingas Superintending} Engineer (O), TSNPDCL, Warangal

¶12

S.Yadagiri Swamy, S/o Narayana,^{aged about 56 years,Working as General} Manager^(P & MM) Corporate Office,^{TSNPDCL, Warangal}

¶13

T.Chandra Shekhar, S/o Raja Gangaram,^{aged about 55 years,Working as} Superintending Engineer^(O), TSNPDCL,^Adilabad

¶14

V.Venkata Chary, S/o Ramachandraiah, aged^{about 57 years, Workingas} Superintending Engineer^(O), TSNPDCL,^Karimnagar

¶15

V.Ravindra Reddy,, S/o Ramachandar^{Reddy, agedabout 54 years, Working} as Superintending Engineer,^{TSNPDCL, Warangal}

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

AND

¶18

Telangana Northern Power Distribution Company^{Limited, rep.byits Chairman} & Managing Director, Warangal

¶19

The Chief General Manager^(HRD), Northern^{Power Distribution Companyof} Telangana State, Limited, Warangal

¶20

SmtSandhya Rani,, Wo G.Raja^{Rao, Presentlyworkingas Chief General} Manager, Corporate Office, Northern Power Distribution^Companyof Telangana State, Warangal

¶21

Sri M.Gopal,, S/o Working as Superintending^{Engineer (Operation)Northern} Power Distribution Company of Telangana^{State, Limited, KhammamDistrict.} (C.T is amended as per C.O dt.1010412023 in l.A.No.1 ot²⁰²³⁾

¶22

...RESPONOENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High court may be pleased} to issue a Writ or Order or direction,^{especiallyone in the natureof Writ of} Mandamus: i) declaring the action of^{the respondentsNo.'1 & 2 in promotingthe 3rd}

¶24

respondent irs S; .rt)srintending Engineer and Chief lrri G:neral I,4anager (lncharge) an(l tf o^:ltlr rr)spondent as Superintending E:ngrneer rr lJross violation of G.O.A/]s.No.2" & S]^,c al Welfare^(R.0 R.1) Dept. datel 18-( 3 2003 G O lt,4s.No 2, Social Welfare^([] >r;ial Welfare Ro R1) Dept. dated 9-1 20)4 and service regulations of I resl ondent and set aside the same ii) Conscq rently direct the 1st and 2nd resl:onrie t: to affect the^promotions to tl- e cos ts of Superintendent Engineer's anrj Chi :f General l,4anager by considering the ca,,es of^{petrtionersrn} the resultant vacilr cr3s w.e.f. the date, when RR l] & 4, ivere^promoted as Superintendinrl Encl^rrr, ers duly orantrng all other conse(uenli: I :ren:fits.

¶25

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004l^(PMP. ltlO: 28796 OF 2q04)

¶26

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praying that in the cr')L'nslances stated in the affidavit fik:d n ;upport of the petition, the High Cr)urt ma', be pleased direct the 1 & 2 respc nden ; not to^promote the lll respondent as Ct^ierf G':neral l\ilanager on regular basis,^p,er I rg disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Peti lic,ner : SRl. K VASUDEVA REDD' & SRI f,l NARSIMLOO

¶28

Counsel for the Res rcndents: SRI S RAVINDRANATH

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.2O46l of 2OO4

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

'I'his Writ l)ctiLion undcr Articlc 226 of thc Cor-rst itution of

¶34

India is fitcd by the petitioners seeking Lhc following rclicf

¶35

". ..lo issue a Wit or order or direction, especiaLlg otte itl the \ature of Wil of Mandantus

¶36

i) declaing the action of the responde-nfs iVos. I & 2 in promoting the- 3d respondent as Supeintendinq Dnqineer and Chicf and General Manager (lncharge) ond Ihe 4ttt rcspondett <ts Supenntendtng Enginee-r in gross uiolotion of (i.O.Ms.No.2l Social Welfare (RoR.1) Dept. dated 18.03.2OO3, G.O.Ms.No.2, Sociol Welfare (Social Welfare RoR.1 ) Depl dated 9.1 .2OO4 and serutce reguLations of I respondent and set aside lhe some

¶37

ii) Consequentlg direct the lst and 2Nt responde-nts to offect the promotions to the posls of Superhtendent Lftgutee.rs ctn cl Chtef GeneraL Manager by conside.ring lhc cases of petilioners in the resultant uacancies w e f the dale uhen RR 3 & 4 were promoted as Superintending Engineers duly granttng all other consequential beneftts and iii pass ang such other order or orders as this l]on'ble Court deem and proper in the circunlstonces of the case."

¶38

2l Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Rcddy and Sri M.Narsimloo, the Iearned counsel for the petitioncrs, ancl Sri S. Ravindrar-ralh, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶39

The Iearned counsel lor the petitioncrs has stal.ed l:hat even though the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not cligible to bc promoted as Superintending trngineers, the authorities without lotlowing the rules and regulations have promoted the rcspondcnt Nos.3 and 4 to the Post of Supcrintending Iinginccr and thcrcafter, the

¶40

\ '-s li

¶41

\ \11^I () .⁽⁾ lr) ,j t( )0 I

¶42

fosl)ond nt r\ )..1 \'ils :lLso J)rotll{)tcd to^{[hc I)osl ,J ( ]hicl-(lcncr:rl} M:rr-rirgcr . :rs rt sLtlt^{ol-rr lrtt} lr^thc llctitiollcrs^{llare Itr rt r]t llic d tltc} ol)portu rl\ I r,( ltin!', plolllotecl irs Sullcrinterldinq^ll rgirltcrs^:rncl Chicl C], rrr'-^{1.l,ui:rgt'rsI'-,.'t'rt though the pctil.ion,lr:;ha''r' tilkt'rla} sl:rrrcl tlrrrt r rlsportrlt^{ttl Nos..l ;rnd 4 havc b''crL} lliv(^{ll ( tll tli turn} promotior r l:r s, tl ot t [h c^{('ilstc (SC)} withou^{th'ir (] llcillllposts} e:rrmarkCrl r. rlcr tltlrt cat(tgon irlld^{lhereby Lht: p't tiontrsscrc} cli:nied tlrt' r rce ol^{gclling promotion,} the^{le:trncrcouns<:] for} th(: pctir rorLcr ; lt:.s^{gi,. e:r} ltp^{tllztl groltnd an,1 has lrcct ptcd th:rt} thc pronlo(Lot s u,r'ticlt^{art-' qivcn} to^{Lhe rcspon,lent.lJr's.3 and 4 on} tl'r<: basrs^,,1 I lr citsL(^sratus(SC) is^{not drsplttt tl blttlcarncd} r:Ounscl l,r^' l)('liti()^{(-:s ltas stittedthat thc autho-rLier;('on[ral]} to Ilulc .).1 1) a of n.l'}.S.l').ll Scrvice^{llegulationslrzrvepromot<:d} thc resprrrrlt I N,rs.ll arrd 4^{without their prrlbal;orl having becn} dr:clared tL^r lr llost oi^{Supcrilrtending[!n;1iner:t. 'I'h:]czrrnc:d} counscl 1,rr tl- ' rc:itioncrs^{iras dr'.nvn thc attertic,n(,1' lhirl Courtto} thr: Mcrrto^,io CGM^{(lll?l))/GM (S)/AS.l/602 t {-' I/{)5riatcd} 31 .O 1.2(^{)O5, s:} ur:d bv thc Chairman^{andMaragngl)ircctor,} Northcn I'c, t r l)istrilrution^{CompanyofA.P It( .iorporaLe} Oillce. \ irrirn ,ir[.^,.r'hcreir.t thc rcspondent^{Nos.3 e.rld} '^{r,r'( rc sho"'n} at Sl.No:, I^'. tri'.1.1 etncl iis^pcr thc said^{mem(), thr: s, rvi::cs ol the} llcrsons^{shor"tl-t thc list s cre rcgularizcd to t le p()lilof l)ivisional}

¶43

:\A R.. J \V l'. No.2U 11) I o( 2O0^I

¶44

¶45

Dngincer and they^{werc placed on prot)ation lor tr total pcriod ol'} onc \c:rr u'llh a^{continuous periodol t'"t'o ycarsrvith cllcct lrom thc} dates nol-ed against^{their names. As against respondentNos 3 and} 4, the date of commcncemcnt^{ofprobaliorl isshown as} 08.08.2OO3. I'-urther^{learncdcounscl has stal'cd Lhat cvcn beforc} der:laring the probation,^{ttlercspondentNos 3and 4werc} promote cl as Supcrintending^{Engincerson3 1 10 2003and} 29.12.2OO3 respectivcly,^{which is contraryto thc Rule 2all@l of} APSER Service Regulations^{and alsoG.O.Ms.No2, SocialWelfarc} (Social Wclfare ROR. 1) Dept,^{dated 09.O t.2004 Thcreforc,thc} learned counsel for the^{petitionersprayedt.his Court to direct thc} authorities concerned to^{declare the action of the respondents} Nos.l & 2 in^{promotingthe respondenl No.3 as Supcrintending} Engineer and Chief General^{Manager (lncharge)andthc} respondent No.4 as^{SuperintendingDngineer in gross violationof} G.O.Ms.No.21 Social^{Welfare(Rol?.1) Dept. dated 18'03'2003,} G.O.Ms.No.2, Social^{Welfare (Social WelfareROR I)Dept dated} g.l.2OO4 and service regulations o[ respondent No l and sct asidc the same and consequently, direct^{the respondent Nos'1 and 2 to} affect the^promotions to the^{posts of Superintendcnt Iingineers} and Chiet General^{Manager by considering the cases ol petitioners} in the resultant^{vacancies witheffect from the date whcn}

¶46

,
.

¶47

4 '<sup>\lll r,'^, \r) (r.:L).,,: lO()t

¶48

r('spon(l(^llI ,J!s..1 :ulii I rr.t'r'L pr()n1olcci 'IS^{:' t]xrirltcr.)ding} !ir rurlt^r rll^{t I I otltcli:onst'<1rtt:n ti' tl I rr:rc} 'lts. l')nginci^{l s 1r,} 4) l), r -o ll:lt^{tticli llrl'r( (lt'ounsclappc lrl:lll} , r rhc olficial I csPt)l l(^{( lI} . o., ll :rrtrl I lr rs s Lrttcd thal the p'eserl '','r it Pi:litrorl is ltot nrilliL:l^{irlrlc zts lLl, prrlttlrltionsrvhicl} \v( rl gir c'n to thc os.ll :rntl^{Irrrtr t':Lrtnarkccl lor:arrr'tilzrtr:sbck;rlgtng} rc s prtnr^{lc t-t I} to SC)^{t r: tr:} Srlt^{antl lllttl ils per thcF'ost(:r lxt d bvthe} litLr h,:t',^{it is stated} ()overtt rrc rl 1 l(l pronl(rliolls^{Itrrvr'' tlecngiven} r l⁽ ) I IIO t i() l l S of thc respcn<j€.1^{.Jrls,l3 and 4 is} lllat e,1 Il t:^{... st tllc} l irs theY^{do not} sct asi({(t, Lfr^{t)r:1 tLiOllt rs u'ill llot gct anv proln()Ll()lr} bclong to^{S; ) ('irste. 'l lr;tt ollctthe P()sts are ea'n arl<cd} ft>r SC canclidrLll;.^{lt.r s:ltttc , itl'. ollltbt: fillc'<1up bv SOr I ndidate's only} and tlrc^{tlL k't'1 l{cs( rviltioll has Lo bc f lllov"trlscrupulously} r,r,ithor: L :in 1^{< i} vi:rtiolr^{'l'hr: li rlrncd counselh;rs al ;ostated that} lrrsr:d on^me rit^{cum-st:ni6;l vi1r cl notJ ust} the pr,)m,)1:^{)l s arc} senioritY^{irs,1l( lltendc(l l),\ tllc lx'titioners 'lh3 k:ari' d ( ounselhas} staled^{r:hrrt a I} 'hc^{pcririoncrsand thc rcslrorxien N ls 3 and4} havc rctir:<i^{p'ior to thc liling ol the writ peLl roII a l(} thcreforc,^the tLr()us^{and the} pra,-'cr llr th^{)r( sent\r I l1 pctilionhas becor t: in ir r-L} samc is litl-^{c to be r,lisrltisscil'} 5) l)(,'rll: l( llte matlrial orr tccord

¶49

¶50

,.,\R ,J W.l'. No 1046 I of l0U4

¶51

Admitrcdly, in the present casc, all the petilioners and respondcnt Nos.3 and 4 havc rctired lrom scrvice and if any rclief is to be granted, the same is only for the notional beneiits, if any.

¶52

7l I(aving given up the ground rhal. thc respondent Nos.3 and 4 have bccn grvcn promotions by wrongly applying thc Rulc o[ Reserva[ion, this Court is not dwelling into thc same. That insofar as the contcntion ol the petitioner that without dcclaring the probation ol thc respondent Nos.3 and 4, thc authoritics havc given promotion to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to thc post o[ Superintending Dnginccr, contrary to Rule 2+(11(al of ApSIiB Servicc Regulations, is without any legal basis, is concerned. lt may be notcd that thc respondent Nos.3 and 4 were temporarily promoted as l)ivisional Enginecrs vide ordcr NOO/CGM/HI?I) Rt.No. 1 l9 dated 27 .O9.2OO2 passed by rhe Chairman and Managing Director, APNPDCI,, Warangal._ Thereaftcr, their serviccs wcre regularised as Divisional linginccrs vidc Mcmo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS.l/ 602 PO.l/05 dated 3t.01.2005, issued by thc Chairman and Managing Director, Northern powcr Distribution Company of A.P.l.td. Corporate Ofhce, Warangal. Even though it is contended by the petitioners that without declaring the probation thc respondcnt Nos.3 and 4 wcre promoted as Superintending llngineers, it is to be noted that

¶53

,1R,.^J j ) lr ,t ,t li)o-l

¶54

¶55

irncl '1 irs^{p( I lll} o'dt:r s^vidt: Jlr-om()li,,rl^{ll :l c rcslror,dt'tllNos 'i} N O.(). {(.(.^{[,] I ttt))} llL No 'l^r'i i:lzrte<l 3l il0o3 and N.O.O/(lLlX4,/^{I ll)I?r'No')() rtlatt:<l 29 1-2'zOO'.} o rly rtn^a t('mp()Iirlv^{lr:; s 'l'1lt ('l(l('rol} l)r'onroLron^{tll- tre l-t:} 'c'n:lcnt^{No 3} dartr:(l al^{1().;O')3,re:ttis:tslttt<1cr}

¶56

"!.1ⁱ⁽ⁱ 'r^{)?eqt!lu1it)rr 1'l (rt)11)olAPS|B SL'ru"el"<:rJtrtrrtlonsl'art} l, s rdoptctl^{lttl !,1)ItLtttscttarlrlcotr'scrilri:tzlrlllrrD1SlO"l/'s} pn)filo1(.d tl t lolrcu)tt1(J 1)llri.slort(rl^{l:'tlqt.rrtets(ltl'cl)} ') t' t l')ranltl^{lo(1ct (/s} 'sriPCn '^{llendlttEllirt lineer:} t,rLecl)^tuitll t fi 't l'r^{nt tlY.i(Llr ol (tsslrrrl/)lronof t lnrtc: ond ')t''le(t 1o I l'r'} lt'r^{r-, s itrlict.tlett .L(l(littsl lllctt' rrllr7le's rll (:o llmt'} 11)l beloul ^()

¶57

) 'llte Ptttrtr'tlLtrrts ordcre'11 rrt^{Pora I ol'('x ttrePurel:J} tc 'tl.orortl!J^{ttttd lrol<' la b''l''rni/tQted(tt or':l lt1t'- uill7o1'l} ,rr,rr.. nncl^{,f'lrorrla-ssir/,llrtq antl reo;on 'ltr'''to'} 'l'lLe l),^{,r'ot,nsor(lcl-e(lttt !)altQI oboue orcttitltttu1 re'1t' diceto} tn ;e-nrorittl^{ol'the. olficet:;llr'} u'tLL tn1"rgt'^{1tl tre utw ctf} r.(^(: lrsl o/nssisLotll^{l-ttqotcersol l:lcclt]',]].g L)t'o'1''nelt Qs on} t 1't.,to n:^t'tal's'tl

¶58

Ilrcp,--Il^{1i .lg up()nt}-rc admir-ristrativecxilent:i(:j' the company} can pr()mol(^{irn em[)]ovectcmporarilylt is :l selt t: I lew that thc} seniorilY c,f^{l(r cmplo)(ic in that post u'ill bc llx':<l l-:rn the clate of} declaratio'l^{r)l the pr(lbation''l'hcrcfore' th cpc'it on jrs cannot} havc anv^{c-l- rr.IrICC \'ili rcgard [o the temporal]' I)r:)rnoLiollof the} \os.3 zrntl 4^{firr thc simple rcasorlI li'tthcy clo not} respon lerIl belortg ro^S( ( atcgor''. Aclmittt-dh , itl^{this ca:;e1 llc -'iv€rc1 I posts}

¶59

¶60

,,\ R,. J U/-t'. N().-10.161 t)t-2O01

of Superintending I.)ngincr:rs and as^pcr the tlulc of Rcservation, 1.5% of thc posts havc bt:cn carmarkr:d lor SC's, thc samc r.r,ill come to 1.6.5 post and as per G.O.Ms.No.2 Socral Wclfare (SW.RORI) l)cpartment dalcd O9.01 .2OO4, Lhe fraction will bc rounded off to the ncxt digit. Thcrefore, two posts havc bcen earmarked lcrr the candidate belonging to SC category. The contention of thc petitioncrs that the authorities promoted thc respondent Nos.3 and 4 conLrary to Clauses 8 and i3 of G.O.Ms.No.2 clated O9.01.2OO4, is also without. any basis as in the counter filcd by t-he ofllcial rcspondents, it is categorically stated that the panels in thc presenl were already prepared in October, 2003 and l)ccember, 2003. Even if the contention of the petitioners is to be acceptcd and the promotion of the responden t Nos.3 and 4 is liable to be se t aside, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as they do not belong to the SC category. Thcrefore, the petitioners by any stretch oi imagination cannot be said to be aggrieved parties. llaving regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶65

Accordingly, this Writ l)etition is dismissed

¶66

I \li I l) lar i)r'10()l

¶67

C,rnsrr rlltth, ntr:r('( lliincoLls pctitlons )erI(:l t!', il ltnr, shall

¶68

st:tlr(l ci rs('(1. Ilrrrre -s]rrll r)( 11() or(lcr as lo⁽ o its

¶69

To,

¶70

SD/.^I]. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSIS;TAI{T REGISTRAR 12/ :;E(;TION.OFFICER

¶71

,TRUE COPY//

¶72

One CC to S^:ll K VASUDEVA REDDY, Advocato.loF'}tl(::l

¶73

One CC. to St l S RAVINDRANATH, Advocate lOPUCl

¶74

One CC to St I I,4 NARS I MLOO, Advocate.[OPUO]

¶75

Two CD Cc,pi :s

SB GJP - d

HIGH COURI

DATED:10104[2023

-.',.=
I i,tt- iTA rli
)0'
t<br>^1
\ I lt[ ?[B LL
[]+. ].
':
c
t' .- --io,'

¶81

ORDER

¶82

WP.No.20461 of 2004

¶83

DISMISSING'I HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COI)'TS

¶84

- l.-)
t2'

P.Ganapathi, Nizamabad and 7 v. Chairman, Npdc Ltd. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ganapathi, Nizamabad and 7 v. Chairman, Npdc Ltd. and 3 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

Vemula Shankar, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

T. Hari Prasad, Secunderabad. Vs the a.P.Civil Supplies Corp.Ltd.,Rep.by Md., Hyderabad.

Avinav v Shah Vs Sri Rajashekar

M/s. Prince Shoe Mart, Vs The Authority Under Section 53 of the A.P. Shops and

Yedla Upendramma, Sec-Bad and Another, Vs the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport, Hyd and 2 Others

Siddaboina Radhika Vs Bairaboina Santhosh