Telangana High Court
WP/26835/2006 of A.V.L. Suryanarayana Murthy Vs A.P. Transmission Corporation, Rep. its Chairman and on 27 December 2006
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SIX P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA * * * WP.No.26835 of 2006 Between: AVL Suryanarayana Murthy, s/o. A . Subba Rao, aged about
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND SIX
P R E S E N T
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA* * *
WP.No.26835 of 2006
Between:
AVL Suryanarayana Murthy, s/o. A. Subba Rao,aged about 36 years, r/o. D.No. 12-207,Sainagar, Gundala Veedhi, Thummapala (v),Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam district. … Petitioner
Versus
A.P. Transmission Corporation,Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,Vidyuthsoudha, Somajiguda,Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr.P.B. Vijay Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri SamineniCounsel for the Respondents.
Kishore StandingCounsel for the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
W.P. No. 26835 of 2006
Oral order:
The petitioner states that the respondents issued NotificationNo.06/2006, inviting applications from eligible male candidates for filing up1220 vacancies of Junior Lineman on yearly contract basis. Thereafter, thepetitioner states that the respondents issued revised NotificationNo.09/2006, which according to the petitioner, had restricted therecruitment only to contract labour working through the contractors in therespective operation circles. The petitioner states that since the revisednotification had restricted the recruitment only to candidates working ascontract labour, and he not being a contract labour, is excluded from beingconsidered.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents-AP TRANSCO.
I am unable to agree with the contention of the petitioner. Thenotification issued by the respondents for recruitment on contract basis for aperiod of one year is a general notification. However, to give preference tocontract labour, the respondents have issued the revised notification. Therevised notification, in no manner excludes the non-contract labour fromapplying or being considered. What all the revised notification states is thatif the applicants satisfy the criteria for selection as provided in clauses (i) to(iii), preference will be given to those who have experience as contractlabour as provided in clause (iv)(a) to (d). Merely because the revisednotification had provided for giving preference to the contract labour alreadyworking through various contractors for the respondents, it cannot be saidthat the non-contract labour have been excluded from applying or beingconsidered for selection. If the petitioner satisfies the criteria of selection,as provided in clauses (i) to (iii), he is always entitled to apply. Therefore, Ifind nothing wrong in the respondents issuing the revised notification.
There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordinglydismissed.
________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Date: 27[th] December, 2006.ISL