WA/2615/2005 of G.Parvathalu, Vs The Managing Director, A.P.State Housing Corporation on 30 December 2005

Conclusion

1. G.Parvathalu son of Chinnaiah,

aged 45 years,Asst.Engineer, Achampet,

A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited,

Mahaboobnagar district and 8 others

And

….Appellants

1. The Managing Director, A.P.StateHousing Corporation Limited, H.No.3-6-160,Urdugally, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad and 4 others.

…Respondents

JUDGMENT(Per Sri B.Prakash Rao, J)

Heard both the counsel and at their request, the main appeal itself istaken up for disposal.

The appellants herein are the writ petitioners who sought a writ of mandamus declaring G.O.Rt.No.416, dated 12-12-2005, issued by the 4[th]respondent as illegal and arbitrary.

Pending admission of the writ petition, this Court passed orders on 20-12-2005 granting interim suspension of the said G.O. However, it was observedthat the said orders does not preclude the Government from issuing necessaryorders, after putting the petitioners on notice. It is pointed out that theGovernment also issued notice on 23-12-2005 and therefore, it will eventuallylead to immediate reversion in spite of the fact that they are entitled to be continued as Assistant Engineers.Against the similar order passed in G.O.Rt.No.114 dated 19-04-1999, anotherwrit petition was filed.

Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of record, it isseen that the main writ petition itself is still pending consideration in this Courtand while granting interim suspension of the impugned order, it was observedprima facie that the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.114 dated 19-04-1999conferred the right on the petitioners to be continued as Assistant Engineers tillthey come up for consideration to fill up such posts in the resultant vacanciesin future. Though it is stated that the notice was given to one of the appellantsbut not to others, the fact remains that an opportunity is being given to all theappellants by way of such notices and it is only after taking into considerationthe explanation of the individuals, it is open to the respondents to pass ordersafresh in accordance with law. If any adverse order is passed, it is always opento the appellants to seek the appropriate relief depending upon the exigency. Inview of the same, we do not find any warrant to interfere with the impugnedorder.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

----------------------------

Dated: 30-12-2005.

Note: CC in 3 days

B/o

Hsd

-------------------------------

G.YETHIRAJULU, J