Telangana High Court
WP/27933/2005 of B.Bhaskar Rao, Vs A.P.Forest Development Corporation Ltd., on 29 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.27933 of 2005 Date:29.12.2005 B.Bhaskar Rao. -----------Petitioner A.P.Forest Development Corporation Limited. -------------Respondent ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Temporary Watcher in the A.P.Forest Development Corporation Limited,
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
W.P.No.27933 of 2005
Date:29.12.2005
B.Bhaskar Rao.
A.P.Forest Development Corporation Limited.
-----------Petitioner
-------------Respondent
ORDER:
The petitioner was employed as a Temporary Watcher in the A.P.ForestDevelopment Corporation Limited, respondent herein, in the year 1983. Placingreliance upon the Scheme framed by the respondent, he sought forregularization of his appointment. When his case was not considered, he filedW.P.No.33744 of 1998. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 05.11.1999directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms ofG.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.04.1999.Subsequently, the order was modified on 23.03.2005, directing that thepetitioner’s case be considered in terms of Memorandum of Settlement, dated18.04.1994. On a consideration of the case of the petitioner, the respondentpassed the rejection order, dated 09.09.2005. The same is challenged in thisWrit Petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counselfor the respondent.
In the matter of regularization of the contingent employees appointed asTemporary Maistries/Watchers in the respondent-Corporation, a Scheme wasformulated in the Memorandum of Settlement, dated 18.04.1994. According tothe guidelines stipulated therein, a candidate must have been appointed at thecommencement of the Division, which in the instant case is 1978, and must have completed 180 days of service in each calendar year for not less than fiveyears. It was on the touchstone of these conditions, that the case of thepetitioner was examined. It emerged that the petitioner was appointed in theyear 1983 and did not work for five consecutive years with 180 days of servicein each year. The respondent has furnished the relevant particulars for eachand every year, during which the petitioner worked. The petitioner is not able toplace any material to doubt the accuracy of the statement furnished by therespondent. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any basis tointerfere with the impugned order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several vacancies areexisting in the respondent-Corporation, and the case of the petitioner may beconsidered. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was associated withthe respondent-Corporation for such a long time, his case certainly beconsidered, as and when steps are taken to appoint candidates against theexisting vacancies, if necessary, by relaxing the age, by the number of years,he has been in service with the respondent-Corporation.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner, as and when recruitment ismade against the existing vacancies of Temporary Maistries/Watchers in thecorresponding Division, by relaxing the age up to the number of years, duringwhich he worked with the respondent-Corporation, subject to his possessingother qualifications. There shall be no order as to costs.
Jsu
__________
29.12.2005