Telangana High Court
WP/25013/2001 of G.GANESWARA RAO Vs THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, on 28 December 2017
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.No.25013 of 2001 ORDER Heard Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ravindra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
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.
ORDER
W.P.No.25013 of 2001
Heard Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ravindra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for the post of LDC/Junior Lineman/Typist pursuant to the interview held on 21.01.1999, as arbitrary and illegal.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a casual labour in the respondent-Company through a contractor during 1995; that while working as such, the respondent-Company had announced a policy videB.P.M.S.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, whereunder it was decided that 50% of the vacancies are liable to be filled up by way of regularizing the services of those persons, who are working on casual basis; that the case of the petitioner was considered in terms of the said BPMS No.36 and he was interviewed on 21.1.1999.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has attended the interview, the respondents have not declared the results.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that since the petitioner was not selected in the interview, he was not appointed.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
In view of the fact that the petitioner was interviewed on 21.1.1999, he is entitled to know the result of the selection.
In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner and communicate the same to him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration, it is needless to say that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him in any one of the suitable post.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI