Telangana High Court
WP/27819/2005 of The APGENCo Diploma Engineers Association Vs The APGENCO represented by its Managing Director, on 28 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27819 of 2005 Dated: 28-12-2005 Between: The APGENCO Diploma Engineers Association and others. .. PETITIONERS AND The APGENCO, Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and others. .. RESPONDENTS ORDER: The first petitioner is an
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Ratio decidendi
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27819 of 2005
Dated: 28-12-2005
Between:
The APGENCO Diploma Engineers Association and others.
.. PETITIONERS
AND
The APGENCO, Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and others.
.. RESPONDENTS
ORDER:
The first petitioner is an association of Diploma Engineers employed in theAPGENCO and petitioners 2 to 10 are its members. They challenge the orderspassed by the first respondent in G.O.O.No.305/CGM(Adm.)/2005, dated 07-11-2005. Through the impugned order, the first respondent cancelled another orderpassed on the same day.
The petitioners contend that the matter of fixation of the ratio between DiplomaEngineers on the one hand and the Graduate Engineers on the other hand has beenpending ever since the bifurcation of the erstwhile Electricity Board and afterprolonged consultations and study by the Administrative Staff College, the firstrespondent issued G.O.O.No.300/CGM(Adm.)/2005, dated 07-11-2005, stipulatingthe ratio at 3:2 between the said two categories. They plead that even before theorder fixing the ratio was made known to the concerned persons, the impugnedorder was passed cancelling it.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
There appears to be some confusion or communication gap in the office of the firstrespondent in the matter of determining issue of fixation of ratio between the twocategories of Engineers, referred to above. A perusal of the orders in G.O.O.No.300,dated 07-11-2005, discloses that the matter was considered at length and the ratio at3:2 was fixed. Even before the ink on the said order has dried, the first respondentissued the impugned order on the same day cancelling G.O.O.No.300, dated 07-11-2005. No reasons are stated whatsoever.
But, for the fact that the order in G.O.O.No.300, dated 07-11-2005, did not give rise toany rights in favour of individuals of associations, this court would have consideredthe feasibility of requiring the first respondent to narrate the circumstances that led topassing of the impugned order. Since, the first respondent passed the impugnedorder before any rights have accrued in favour of any individuals, it has to be inferredthat he felt the necessity of examining the matter further.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition isdisposed of, directing the first respondent to examine and consider the entire issueafresh and pass appropriate orders in the matter of fixation of ratio between theDiploma Engineers and Graduate Engineers, before any appointments areundertaken to that category of posts. No order as to costs.
______________