Disposed

K. Komaraiah and another v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited. (Tsspdcl) and 3 others

Telangana HC10 Jun 2025WP/9069/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought appointment as Junior Linemen on par with those appointed under 2006 notifications, relying on an earlier writ order. The court, noting that order was set aside in appeal, disposed of the petition directing consideration of their pending representations within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to consider representations dated 17-11-2020 seeking appointment as Junior Linemen and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

K. Komaraiah and another Vs Southern Power… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE TENTH DAY OF J_UNE} rWO iHOUSEND^{AND TWENWFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PE^{TITIONNO:9069oF 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

; 5;f:E[*r; fffi ,1l3f^{f T]$"d':3f;"' :;;;#ffi}

¶9

AND

¶10

¶11

'^{R:ts',::'Jli"%-r"J,?J"Ji',Y,',li:f,Tl',fi:#J,l3'il,.%1?3,:1f,il1i3"(ffi;I3:')'}

¶12

,?ig"ifl :fr 1r*^Y1HSF,%tTfl ,h?Sffi :ilffJ:J.,:#":::.] . ?'.:i1i3i31k#1"^i;

¶13

;irq#fl*]fi iit+ifttittu"*t#ffi i:rs"t:'#;:=..

¶14

PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith' the High Court maybe} pleased to^{issue an appropriate Writ'Orderor Directionmore particularlyonein} the nature^{of writ of Mandamus by decraringthat the petitionersare entitled to be} appointedasJuniorLinemenwithbenefitsincidentalandancillarytheretoonthe analogy^{of Orders passedin W'P' No' 23688of 2019 dated 01-10-2020and on} par with individuals^{who were appointedas such pursuantto notificationsdated} 08.06-2006and20-10-2006respectivelyintheinterestofjusticedulyholdingthe action of^{the Respondentsin denying appointmentto the Petitionersas Junior} Linemen by^{keeping the mafter pending without any validor legal justification as} unjust and^{in violation of Articles14 and 16 of the} being arbitrary,^illegal, Constitution^{of lndia.}

¶15

IANO:1O F 202.2

¶16

Petition urde' Section 151 cPC praying that in the,circumrt;rnces stated in the affidavit filed n s upport of the petition, the High Court may be plr>ased to direct the Responderts tc :r>nsider issuing appointing orders to the tretit oners as Junior Linemen by c:nsid:ring petitioners' representation da'ed 17-11-2020 0n rhe analogy of the ()rderr; passed in rr'/.p. No. 236g8 of 2019 datec Oi-10_2020.

¶17

!:.1::tfor^{the petirioners: sRt D.sUDHARSHAN} uounserf ortheResr)onu"nt",snrclv,ri"e#g;s:T3[r"r-?lrr[."Tr"_

¶18

The Court made the rbllowing: ORDER

¶19

¶20

HON,BLE^{MRS' JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶21

F 2 z TP

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard^{Sri D'sudharshan' learned counselappearlng} on behalf^{of the petitioners and Sri G'Vidya Sagar' learned} Senior^{DesignatedCounselrepresentingSmt' K'Udaya Sri'} learned^{counselappearingon behalf of the respondents'}

¶24

k h h c r 2 T it e s

¶25

DT a^vrasuner:

¶26

"...to^{issue an appropriate Writ' Order or Direction more} particularly^{one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusby} declaring^{that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed} as Junior^{Linenibn with benefits incidentaland ancillary} theretoontheanalogyoforderspassedinW.P.No.23688 of 2019^{dated 01-10-2020 and on par with individuals who} were^{appointed as such pursuant to notifications dated 0B-} 06-2006^{and 20-10-2006 respectively in the interest of} justice duly^{holding the action of the Respondentsin} denying^{appointmentto the Petitioners as luniorLinemen} by^{keeping the matter pending without any valid or legal} justification^{aS being arbitrary, illegal,unjust and in} violation^{of Articlesf+ anO 16 of the Constitutionof lndia} and to Pass'"

¶27

¶28

*.r. *o.r,Ur_ri),

¶29

Ihe r:ase of the petitioners, in brief, is theit * e petitioners had a,:plierl for the posts of Contract Junjor Linenren (CJLM) pursuant h) notifications dated 08.06.2006 zrntJ .10.10.2006 issued b.l r:l,e Respondent No.4. The petitioners; s.rccessfully complete(i tit(: selection process, including ther pole_c irnbing test and int€rrviev/ held in February 2073, andsubmitted ttre ir original certificates;, For v,y6166 acknowledgments were issue C, Despite being inl,ornrr:cl that the petitioners, names were irclu C ed in the selection li:;t, a ppointment orders were not issued c ue ; o pending litigation. Fol|l\rying the Hon,ble Supreme Court,s f nal judgment on 25.02.2011) resolving the dispute, the petitioners :;ubmitted represent,ltionr; seeking appointment, however. the s tid claim had been de,n ie:cl by the respondents. Aggrieved by the arbitrary action of ther .r-.:;pondents, the petitioners filed the prel,;ent writ petition.

¶30

P RU D HE ,RE c RD:

¶31

A) The re n f h s lJ the respondent No=4 d P M e2/BIVlD.No.613ly'_ :3 d o _ the Detition er he.rc I r de

¶32

¶33

SN,J w.P.N0.9069 2022

¶34

¶35

Adverting to the references cited^above, Sri. K. Komaraiah S/o. Beeraiah is directed to appear before the selection committee on 72-02-2013 at 9.00 AM hrs. O/o. the Superintending Engineer/Operation Circle/Medak at Sangareddy along with the original certificates i.e., SSC/SSLC Certificate, Date of Bifth, ITI Certificate or Intermediate Vocational Course in Electrical Trade, Wiremen Trade, Caste Certificate, Residence Proof Certificate.

¶36

He is also informed that no T.A. and D.A. will be paid to him for appearing for the above mentioned interview.

¶37

The pole climbing test will be conducted on 12.O2.2OL3. He should climb the pole up to the top of the pole. Otherwise the incumbent is not eligible for selection.

¶38

B) The counter affidavit ha been filed on behalf of the resDondents and in^{particular,paraqraph} Nos.1 I to L4.2 are extr cted hereunder:

¶39

"11. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 25-2-2019 in SLP(C) No. 15001-15110 of 2013 (re-numbered as Civil Appeal No. 2009-2158 of 2019) set aside the orders of the Division Bench dated l4-3-20L2 in W.P. No. 8794 of 2OO7 and batch and upheld the orders of the^earlier Hon'ble Division Bench dated 10-11-2009 in^W.A.No.

¶40

¶41

SN,J W P. ',10.9069 2022

¶42

1434 of 2008 and batch. It was alsc rer:c rded that t 1e appointments were made over and a bove the posts notified in the year 2006 and further observed that the Hon,ble Division Bench by o, Ou. OutuO '.1 1.3-20t2 in W.p. No. 8794 of 20iB rrrd batch c:()rnmitted serious error in directing :o r 3..examine the selections already made in the year 2015. It was al:;o recorded that eve wrr<, were appried,", J""j"::'lJllii;.'l;ff::?; th,l year 2006 and were efFected by condition of 6 (iv) (c) of the revised notification, I rould be corr:;idered For appointment.

¶43

lrl In view of the orders oF the Hon,ble Supreme rlcrrrrt dated 25-2-20rg, review.f serections as uncle,rtaken in implementation of the orcle -s; dated 14-3-20L2 of this Hon,ble Court in \il.p. No. {t794 of 20C7 and batch was abandoned. The Wr t p( t tioners herr:in who were issued with call lette - dated 7-2t-2013 in implementation of the order; dated 74-:l-2012 would not be eligible for consider;rtion For al)p()iltment as Junior Linemen in pursuancc of the N,rtit'i<:ation of 2006, as the orders in W.tr. N ). 8794 ot 2OQ7 and batch were set aside. Thus, ther€ itre no meri :s in the Writ petition and the same is lable to be disrnissed.

¶44

In reply to averments made in pare \o. 2 of the: Writ petition, it is submitted that the rlljef as sougl t for in the Writ petition is misconceivr d and

¶45

¶46

5N,J W.P.No.9069 2022

¶47

¶48

untenable.^{The Writ Petitioner is seekingfor reliefon} the basis of the^{orderspassedin W'P' No'23688of} 2}lg, dated L-lo-2020.^{Inthis regard, itis} submitted that against^{the ordersdated 1-10-2020in} W.P. No. 23688 of^{2019, the TSSPDCL had filedW'A'} No. 45 of 2022 and^{the DivisionBench of this Hon'ble} Court by order^{dated 28-4-2022held that the orders} dated 1-10-2020^{in W.P. No. 23688 of 2019 are} contrary to the^{law laid down by the Hon'ble} Supreme^{Courtin SLP (C) No. 15001-15110 of 2013'} dated 25-2-2019^{and accordinglyallowed the writ} Appeal. SLP^{(C) No. 9906 of 2022 filed again5t the} orders dated^{28-4-2022in W.A. No' 45 of 2022was} also dismissed^{by order dated 02-06-2022' Thus' no} relief can be^{souoht for bv the Writ Petitioneron the} basis of the orders passed in W.P. No. 23688^of 2019.

¶49

In reply to^{avermentsmade in ParaNos'3} to 18, it is submitted^{that as stated above, the Writ} Petitioner was^{issued with call lettersdated l-2-2O13} only in the^{processof implementation of the orders of} the Division^{Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W'P' No'} 8794 of 2oo7^{and batch, datedt4-3-2012' However'} in view of the^{interim orders grantedby the Hon'ble} Supreme Court^{in SLP (C) No' 15001-15110 of 2013'} daled L6-4-2013,^{review of the selectionsmade in} the year 2006^{was stalled. Thereafter, the Hon'ble} Supreme Court^{by order dated 25-2-2OL9, set aside} the orders daled^{14-3-2012in W'P'No' 8794 of 2oO7}

¶50

<br>

¶51

¶52

s N,./ V P.No.9069 2022

¶53

and batch. Thus, the entire review cf tte selections rnade in the year 2006 were aba rrloned and c:onsequenfly consideration of case tf t.te petitioner fcr appointment as Junior Linemen agairrst the posts rotified in the Notification 2006 would al;<l not arise, as the case of the petitioner was srrbje:ted to pole Climbing Test only in pursuance of the orders dated 14-3-2072 which was subsequenily :;et. rrside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶54

14.1 It is submitted that W.p No. 23699 olF 2r119 was filed seeking appointment i1 terms of lause 6 (iv) (d) of the revised Nc,tificar:ion dated ,2()-10-2006 for the post of Junior Linemr n. The said rA/rit Petition was disposed of with ce rtai I directions try the learned single Judge by or der dated '-.70.2020. Aggrieved by the sa id c rrlers, the ]'S;SPDCL filed W.A. No. 45 of 2022 and the Division Eiernch of this Hon,ble Court allowed the r1/rit Appeal by order dated 2B-4-2022 and set asioe tie orders in V/.P. No. 23688 of 2019 dated 1_10_2020, SLp (C) No. 9906 of 2022 filed challengincl thr: ,)rl3rs dated ,28-4-2022 in W.A. No. 45 of 2022 q6s alsc rlismissed or 02-06-2022. Thus, the Writ petitiorrrrr herein cirnnot claim any beneFit on the basis oF le orders p,:s;sed in W.p. No.23688 of 20L9.

¶55

14.2. lt is submitted that the averrrt:nts that rirlht to be considered for appointm lnt is a FL rdamental Right guaranteed under Art c e 16 of

_.t

SN,J W-P.No.9069-2022

¶60

Constitution^{of India is misconceivedand untenable'} h r P o r li le n id red t ti to ns t o n r f R ti il n r w ver he Wri P iti ner wa n it tn he z o ti n nd wa t s o ewa o s h a ol me ca le rl t r o e he I n e c m n m t h o e tv h I ts Ho 'b u P.N 8 4 t20 7 n a h e -3- o 2.H e rt o e L lfw s id b t n le e u b J e -2-20 h h ts ru t vo r t heWr P ti rs o e f a o ntme s u r n ns t ti io 2005."

¶61

Learned Senior^{Designated Counsel appearing on} behalfof.therespondents,placingrelianceonthe averments^{made in the counteraffidavitfiled on behalf of} the respondents,^{particularlyin paragraph Nos' 11 to L4'2} (referred to and^{extractedabove)' contends that the relief} claimed by^{the petitioners cannot be granted'as the} petitioners have^{relied upon the order dated 01'10'2020} passed an W.P. No.^{23688 ol 2Ot9' which had been held to}

¶62

I ] \

¶63

¶64

sN,j W.P.No.9O69_2022

¶65

be contrary to taw by the Division Bench in its judgment date,c 118.04.2O22 passed in w.A. No. 45 ot ,2ll22.The said judgrnent had been uphetd by the Hon,ble Srupreme Court in s.L.p, (c) Nos. 15001_15110 0f 2013 dated 25.02.2019. There,fore, the writ petition is tiable to be disrnissed.

¶66

t.ea r 1ed counsel appearing on behalF oF he petitioners spec fir:ally contends that the petitioners atten d3d the pole climting test in the year 2013 and completed the lrole climbing test and the petitioners, names were also inc lLrded in the selectiol /ist and therefore, the petitione,rs, r_equest for appointrne r : as Contract Jun ior Linem€n in prg15 litnce of the intervievvs conducted by selection committee should be consid 3 r,3d,

¶67

J hisl urt e L<rt entiUed for the re[i fa s DTayed for tn resent wttt De itioni n view ol it a _!x e count f affidavi_L r to and extracteslaUeye!

¶68

7, Learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioners s;urbmits that writ petition could be dirsposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consirJr:r the

(

SN,J W.P.No.9069²⁰²²

I II

representations^{of thepetitionersdated L7 'LL'2O2O} seeking appointment^{of the petitioners as Contract Junior} Linemen within^{areasonabte period' LearnedSenior} designated counsel^{appearing on behalf ofthe} respondents^{does not dispute the said submissionmade} by the learned^{counsel appearing on behalf ofthe} petitioners.

¶75

8 TAKING^INTOCoNSIDE TIO N:

¶76

The aforesaid^{facts and circumstancesof the case'} a)

¶77

b) The submissions^{made by thelearned counsel} appearing^{on behalf of the petitioners and the learned} Senior Designated^{counselappearing on behalf of the} respondents,

¶78

c) The^{proceedingsof therespondentNo'4 vide} Lr.No.SE/^OPN t^MDK I^PO I^{ADM I C2 I B-IV/ D'No' 6 1 3sl 13} dated O1.O2.2O13^{issued to the petitioners herein and'}

¶79

d) The counter^{affidavit filed onbehalf ofthe} respondents,^{in particular,paragraph Nos'11 to L4'2'} The writ^{petition isdisposed ofdirecting the} respondent No.2^{to consider the representations of the}

wo"'ogoog-zi]l

petitioners dated 17 r r ra-wo"'ogoog-zi]l petitioners ." arart: : 7'2o2o seeking appr)intment of the app.opriate orders ,^ -:t"**ct Junior Linemen and pass ""tototnce^to Law of fo,ur (4) weeks ,r,'n vrithin a period the date or ru..;pt order and orr, .on' of ar coPY of this 'tmunicate *'" outi"i repre!;ertations to , shar/ be,,o order r",:.::::,"..'"^n"rl ilJ:r# M is,: -.;16 6 uor, applica tions, if anY, closeo PenrJing 5ft611 stand ll t tr, ii$tj.:,,^F#BBffiR fo //rRuE copytt 1 2 3 4 5. 6. ffififfI^glgr PSK.

-r/

HIGH COURT'

CC TODAY

DATED:10 tO6t2O2S

ORDER