Telangana High Court
WP/23744/1999 of N. ANJAIAH Vs The Superintending Engineer, 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.23744 of 1999 Between: N. ANJAIAH S/O. SIDDAIAH A.P. TRANSCO, NIZAMABAD. .....
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.23744 of 1999
Between:
N. ANJAIAH S/O. SIDDAIAH
A.P. TRANSCO, NIZAMABAD.
AND
..... Petitioner
1 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Nizamabad Zone, Nizamabad and two others. Nizamabad and two others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FORAP TRANSCO)
The Court made the following :
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 Certiorari to quash the orderdated 23.10.1999, whereby respondent No.1 rejected the case of thepetitioner for appointment as Junior Lineman.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearingfor the respondent.
The petitioner claims to be Ex-Casual Labourer and he filedW.P.No.18507 of 1999 in this Court for a declaration that he isentitled to regular absorption as Junior Lineman on the basis of meritin the interview held on 22.01.1999, in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated18.05.1997, and this Court directed the respondents to consider hiscase for absorption. Accordingly, respondent No.1 considered thepetitioner’s claim for absorption and by impugned order dated23.10.1999 he rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground thathis age at the time of initial engagement was only 12 years 8 monthsand 23 days.
At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner 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