Telangana High Court
WP/25453/2005 of B.Gangireddy, Vs The Managing Director, A.P.Power Generation Corporation on 28 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25453 of 2005 Dated: 28-12-2005 Between: B.Gangireddy and others. .. PETITIONER AND The Managing Director, A.P.Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Vidyutsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .. RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioners are working in
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.25453 of 2005
Dated: 28-12-2005
Between:
B.Gangireddy and others.
.. PETITIONER
AND
The Managing Director, A.P.Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Vidyutsoudha,Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .. RESPONDENTS
ORDER:
The petitioners are working in various capacities in the Tungabhadra Hydro ElectricScheme, which is partly under the control of the first respondent. They complain thatrespondents 1 to 3 have promoted R-4 to R-9 to various higher posts, though thelatter do not have the requisite qualifications. Another limb of their grievance is thattheir cases are not being considered against the existing vacancies for promotion.The writ petition came up for admission on 30-11-2005. Counsel for the petitioner ispermitted to take out personal notice and the learned Standing Counsel wasdirected to obtain instructions or to file counter affidavit, as the case may be. Today,the learned Standing Counsel has placed before this court, certain documents andmade submissions on the instructions received by her.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel forthe respondents.
Except making an allegation that respondents 4 to 9 do not have the requisitequalifications, the petitioners did not place any material before this court, tosubstantiate their allegation.
From the documents filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that respondents 4to 9 have fulfilled the requisite qualifications for being promoted to the post ofMechanical Grade-I or other similar posts. The petitioners do not dispute thatrespondents 4 to 9 are seniors to them. Once it has emerged that the promotionswere made duly following the relevant rules and after ensuring that the candidatespossessed requisite qualifications, the petitioners cannot have any grievance.
So far as the claim of the petitioners for being promoted against the existingvacancies is concerned, they have to wait for their turn, for this purpose. Mereexistence of vacancies does not, by itself, confer any right on any individual.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that respondent 1 to 3 shallconsider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher post, as andwhen, their turn comes, after verifying the qualifications held by the petitioners. Noorder as to costs.
28-12-2005
______________
Prv