Telangana High Court
WP/28327/2008 of Bachalakuri Nageswara Rao Vs A.P. Genco, rep. by its Managing Director, on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 28327 of 2008 BETWEEN: Bachalakuri Nageswara Rao S/o. Rubenu, R/o. Thummalapalem
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No: 28327 of 2008
BETWEEN:
Bachalakuri Nageswara Rao S/o. Rubenu, R/o. Thummalapalem Village, Guntupalli Post, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.
AND
... PETITIONER
1 A.P. Genco, rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
2 The Chief Engineer, Vijayawada Thermal Power Station, A.P. Genco, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. Genco, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may bepleased to issue a writ, order or direction more fully in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not consideringpetitioner's case for the post of Junior Plant Attendant as illegal, improper,arbitrary besides being opposed to principles of natural justice andconsequently direct the respondent consider petitioner's case under PhysicalHandicapped persons quota or Scheduled Castes Category in therespondent corporation and pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHAITANYA
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM (SC FOR APGENCO)
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
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 the action ofthe respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for the post of JuniorPlant Attendant as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner and perusedthe record.
3. The petitioner claims to have worked as casual labour (water boy) withthe respondents. He filed WP.No.27395 of 1998 in this Court, which wasdisposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider his case for thepost of Junior Plant Attendant in terms of B.P.Ms.No.37 dated 18.05.1997.Accordingly, the petitioner was interviewed on 03.02.1999. As he wasunsuccessful in securing the employment, he filed WP.No.5524 of 2005,which was dismissed by this Court on the ground of laches. The present writpetition is filed on the ground that the respondents are considering the casuallabour, who worked along with him and that there are number of vacancies inthe category of physically handicapped persons.
4. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has no vested legal right toseek direction against the respondents for his appointment contrary to theprescribed procedure. Though the petitioner averred that the respondents areconsidering casual labour, who worked along with him, he has not given anydetails in support of such averments. The respondents, being aninstrumentality of State, are bound to make appointments in accordance withthe statutory regulations governing recruitments. If they deviate, thepetitioner can always question such action. But he cannot seek a backdoorentry on the purported plea that other similarly placed persons are beingabsorbed. A relief based on the plea of negative equality cannot be claimedby the petitioner. As held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court[1]in STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMA DEVIand reiterated by three Judge[2]Bench in OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v. DAYANAND, the petitioner, who worked with the respondents as casual labour, cannot claim regularization orabsorption without undergoing the regular process of selection in accordancewith the procedure laid down by the respondents.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any ground to entertainthe writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs.
December 29, 2008DSK
_____________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J