Telangana High Court
WP/13201/2000 of R.Ram Prasad, Vs The Chairman cum Managing Director, on 31 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:13201 of 2000 Between: R.Ram prasad and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO:13201of2000
Between:
R.Ram prasad and others
AND
..... PETITIONERS
The Chairman–cum- Managing Director,A.P.Transco, Hyderabad and others.
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners: None appeared Counsel for the respondents:MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct therespondents to regularize the petitioners’ services as Watchman,Cleaner or in any other suitable post.
The relief claimed by the petitioners in this writ petition is primarilybased on B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Their case is that they wereengaged by the contractors for watch and ward duties of therespondents. Their cases were earlier rejected on the ground that theywere not working under the licenced contractors. In view of the orderspassed by this Court on an earlier occasion, their cases were re-considered and by separate orders passed on 07.08.1999, therespondents rejected their cases on three grounds, which are mentionedhereunder:
1. You were not working as on the date of issue ofB.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.5.97 i.e. on 18.5.97.B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.5.97 i.e. on 18.5.97.
Page 1 of 2
2. You were over-aged on the date of first engagement.
3. You were not qualified in O&M test.
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitionershave not specifically pointed out as to how the above-mentioned reasons are not germane for rejection of their cases.
At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners is notpresent to point out the illegalities if any contained in the impugnedorders.
I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned ordersrejecting the claims of the petitioners for absorption.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated21.07.2000 is vacated, WPMP.No.16797 of 2000 is dismissed andWPMP.No.16798 of 2000 is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31[st] DECEMBER, 2008.
kvni
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…