Telangana High Court
WP/19004/1994 of KONDA CHINA ABDUL Vs SEC APSEB HYD on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 19004 OF 1994 Date: 22.12.2006 Between: Konde China Abbulu. …Petitioner and The A.P. State Electricity Board, rep., by its Secretary, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
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 RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO. 19004 OF 1994
Date: 22.12.2006
Between:
Konde China Abbulu.
…Petitioner
and
The A.P. State Electricity Board, rep., by its Secretary, Hyderabadand another.
…
Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION NO. 19004 OF 1994
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that whilethe names of candidates were sponsored by the employmentexchange, pursuant to which application forms were sent andreceived in 1992 itself, on the mere ground that the interviewswere held in the next year on 15.07.1993, the respondents had notconsidered the case of the petitioner on the ground that he hadcrossed the age limit of 30 years as on 01.07.1993.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that, themaximum age limit has to be reckoned with reference to the yearin which the notification inviting applications is issued or atleastthe date on which the applications are called for and not the yearin which interviews were held. Learned Standing Counsel, on theother hand would submit that the rules stipulate the first July of theyear in which interviews are held to be the relevant date forcalculating the maximum age limit. Learned Standing Counselwould further submit that while applications were invited for postsin the electrical trade, the petitioner belongs to the wireman trade. While admitting that the petitioner’s name was also sponsored bythe Employment Exchange, learned Standing Counsel would submit that it is only if the number of candidates, belonging to theelectrical trade, were found insufficient would the question ofcandidates belongs to the wireman trade being considered ariseand as, in the present case, there were sufficient number ofapplicants from the electrical trade itself, candidates who belongedto the electrical trade were alone selected and as such thepetitioner belonged to the wireman trade, he was not consideredfor appointment.
In the absence of any specific challenge to the rule, it is notfor this Court to examine whether the prescription of an age limit,with reference to the year in which interviews are held, is arbitraryor not.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to the wiremantrade. Since applications were invited only from candidatesbelonging to the electrical trade, and only those from the electricaltrade were selected and appointed in the respondent organization,the mere fact the petitioner’s name was also sponsored by theemployment exchange and the respondent had received hisapplication pursuant thereto is of no consequence, when the factthat only candidates from the electrical trade were appointed is notin dispute. On both counts, the writ petition fails and isaccordingly dismissed.
____________________________
Date: 22-12-2006 RAMESH RANGANATHAN,JMRKR