Telangana High Court
WP/18533/1999 of G.V.S.K.Sarma 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.18533 of 1999 Between: 1 G.V.S.K.Sarma S/o. Markendeyulu Chennupalli Village
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.18533 of 1999
Between:
1 G.V.S.K.Sarma S/o. Markendeyulu Chennupalli Village Ballikurva Mandal Prakasam District and six others.
AND
1 The Member/Director Transco A.P, Vidyut Soudha Khairtabad Hyderabad and another.
..... Petitioners
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: MS.R.ANNAPURNA
Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO)
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 alsosought for direction to the respondents to absorb them in anyoperation circle/zone within the State as Junior Lineman within theexisting 50% vacancies as on 18.05.1997 pursuant to B.P.Ms.No.36dated 18.05.1997.
The petitioners claim to be Ex-Village Electricity Workers andthey filed W.P.No.18596 of 1998 in this Court seeking appointment inAP TRANSCO/APSEB on regular basis and this Court directed therespondents to consider their cases in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated18.05.1997. Accordingly, respondent No.2 considered the petitioners’claim for absorption and he rejected their cases on the ground thattheir turn has not come up within the quota of 50% earmarked inB.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997.
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.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J