Telangana High Court
WP/4878/1999 of P.Nagaraju, Vs A.P.Transmission Corporation limited., on 26 December 2006
THE CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION No. 4878 OF 1999 Between: P. Nagaraju ..... Petitioner AND A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director & another .....Respondents :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri V. Srinivas Counsel for the
HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICEWRIT PETITION No. 4878 OF1999
Between:
P. Nagaraju
AND
..... Petitioner
A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited,Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director & another
.....Respondents
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.
:: O R D E R ::
Counsel for the petitioner : Shri V. Srinivas Counsel for the respondents : Shri Samineni Kishore Dated: 26.12.2006
In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue ofa mandamus to the respondents to appoint him asTypist/L.D.C. in terms of policy contained in B.P.Ms.No.36dated 18.05.1997.
In the affidavit filed by him, the petitioner has averredthat he had worked as contract employee in 1992-93 withM/s Srikanth & Company who was executing contract onbehalf of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short‘the Board’). In 1997, he filed Writ Petition No. 13780 of1997 for issue of a direction to the respondents toconsider his case for appointment in accordance with thepolicy decision taken by the Board. The same wasdisposed of on 02.07.1997 with the direction to therespondents to consider his case for absorption as perB.P.Ms.No.36 of 1997. According to the petitioner, heappeared for interview on 02.11.1997 and producedrelevant documents, but his candidature was arbitrarilyrejected on the ground of non-production of the relevantdocuments.
In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri B.S.Ramachandra Rao, Assistant Secretary (legal), AndhraPradesh State Electricity Board, it has been averred thatin compliance of the direction given by the High Court, thepetitioner was interviewed on 02.11.1997, but his candidature was rejected because he did not produce theservice certificate.
It is borne out from the record that the copy of thecounter-affidavit was supplied to the advocate for thepetitioner some time in June 2001, but no rejoinder hasbeen filed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sincethe petitioner has not filed rejoinder affidavit to controvertthe assertion contained in the counter filed on behalf ofthe respondents and no evidence has been placed on therecord of the writ petition to show that he had producedthe service certificate at the time of interview, it is notpossible to entertain his prayer for issue of a mandamusto the respondents to appoint him as Lineman.
It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner nor ShriV. Srinivas has argued that the service certificate was notrequired to be produced as a condition for appointmentpursuant to the policy framed vide B.P.Ms.No.36 dated18.05.1997. Therefore, the petitioner’s failure to producethe service certificate at the time of interview was sufficientfor rejecting his candidature and I do not see any reasonto interfere with the decision of the respondents.
For the reason stated above, the writ petition isdismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition,W.P.M.P.No. 6102 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed.
G.S.SINGHVI, CJ
26.12.2006ksld