Telangana High Court
WP/18523/1999 of Bursh Sivaiah Vs The Member/Director, on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18523 of 1999 Between: 1 Bursh Sivaiah S/o. Subba Rao and another. .....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.18523 of 1999
Between:
1 Bursh Sivaiah S/o. Subba Rao and another.
AND
..... Petitioners
1 The Member/Director, Transco A.P Vidyut Soudha, Khairthabad, Hyderabad and another. Khairthabad, Hyderabad and another.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: NONE APPEARED
Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO)
The Court made the following :
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:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioners in the postsof Junior Linemen, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought forquashing of Memo dated 22.07.1998 issued by respondent No.2whereby their claims for absorption in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated18.05.1997 have been rejected.
The petitioners claim to be Ex-Casual Labourers and they filedW.P.No.11274 of 1998 in this Court questioning the action of therespondents in not absorbing them in the suitable posts in terms ofB.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 and this Court directed therespondents to consider their cases. Accordingly, respondent No.2considered the petitioners’ claim for absorption and by letter dated22.07.1998 he rejected their cases on the ground that they werebelow 18 years of age at the time of their initial engagement andhence they were not eligible for absorption in terms of the BoardCircular.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, they justifiedthe impugned order.
At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners is notpresent to point out any illegality in the order impugned in this writpetition. I do not, therefore, find any justification to interfere with theimpugned order.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Date: 26.12.2008
va
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J