Telangana High Court
WP/25217/2004 of N. Ramesh Kumar, Vs The Chief Engineer (OANDM),R.T.P.P. on 31 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 25217 of 2004 Between: 1 N. Ramesh Kumar, S/o Rangaiah, 19-400, Ammavarisala (St)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 25217 of 2004
Between:
1 N. Ramesh Kumar, S/o Rangaiah, 19-400, Ammavarisala (St) Proddutur , Kadapah District.
2 G. Guru Bhaskar Reddy, S/o G. Urvi Reddy, r/o 17-2-74, Potottipadu (St), Proddutur , Kadapah District.3 K. Sreenivasulu, s/o Ramaiah, R/o 8/478, Sivaji (St) Proddutur , Kadapah District.4 P. Nagendra Prasad, S/o P. Narayana, P. Venkatapuram (Village), Potladurthy (Post) Yerraguntala (M), Kadapah District.
5 P.V. Rama Prasad, S/o Lakshmaiah,
Kalamalla (Po. & Village), Yerraguntal (M), Kadapa District.
6 V. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o Pakeera Reddy, Thimmapuram ( Po & V), Kondapuram (M), Kadapa District.
7 P. Narayana, S/o Venkataiah, Yerraguntal , Kadapa District.
8 S. Subbarayudu, s/o Lakshminarayana, 5/3, Vijayanagaram (ST), Proddutur - 516 360, Kadapa District.
9 V. Ramalinga Reddy, S/o Sivalinga Reddy, Thimmapuram, Kondapuram (M), Kadapa District.
10 D. Sreenivasulu Reddy, S/o Narasimha Reddy, Lavanur (PO), Kondapuram(M), Kadapa District.
11 K. Subramanya, S/o Subbanarsimhulu, Kalamall, Yerraguntal (M), Kadapa district.
12 B. Kiran Kumar Reddy, S/o Raghava Reddy, Mallela (PO & V) , Thondur (M), Kadapa District.
13 C. Madan Gopal, S/o Gopal, Lawyers Colony, Chittoor (Town), CuddapahDistrict.
14 G. Suresh Kumar Babu, S/o Jayaramulu, Tadipatri Town, AnanthapuramDistrict.
Page 1 of 3
15 S. Lakshmi Narayana, S/o Subbarayudu, Julepally (PO & V), NandyalMandal, Kurnool District.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1 The Chief Engineer (O&M),R.T.P.P. A.P. Generation Corporation Ltd,
V.V. Reddy Nagar, Cuddapah District.
2 A.P. Generation Corporation Ltd, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue any appropriate Writ Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not disposing of therepresentation dt. 25--9-2002 followed by the reminders dt. 22-10-2003 and 20-5-2004 respectively seeking for absorption in the respondents Management on parwith the similarly situated persons appointed as Assistant cook and cookrespectively under Memo No. CE/O&M/RTPP/PO/F.P/D.No. 267/2001 dt. 27-1-2001and Memo No. CE/E/O&M/RIPP/POF.P./D.No. 266/2001 dt. 27-1-2001 issued bythe 1st respondent is as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of theconstitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of therepresentation dt. 25-9-2002 followed by the reminders dt. 22-10-2003 and 20-5-2004 in respect of the absorption of the petitioners in the employment of therespondents establishment.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.CHANDRAIAH
Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.K.SESHARAJYAM, STANDINGCOUNSEL FOR APGENCO.
The Court at the stage of admission, made the following :
ORDER:
Page 2 of 3
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of mandamusdeclaring the action of the 1[st] respondent in not disposing of theirrepresentation dated 25.9.2002 as illegal and arbitrary andconsequently to direct the 1[st] respondent to dispose of the same.
The petitioners seem to have worked as Assistant Cook and Cookrespectively in the respondent organization for some time. For wantof vacancies, they were terminated from service in the year 1997.Thereafter, the petitioners gave a representation to the respondentsto consider their case in accordance with the Rules, but the samehas not been considered.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that therepresentation of the petitioners in appointing the petitioners asAssistant Cook and Cook have not been considered, therefore, heprays to give a direction to the respondent organization.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent organization contended that depending upon thevacancies, the case of the petitioners will have to be considered inaccordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation.
Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, it is for therespondents to take appropriate decision with regard to theavailability of the vacancies and also appointments to be made inaccordance with the Rules and Regulations of the respondent-management.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to therespondents to consider the case of the petitioners in any suitablepost, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of theCorporation, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
bsv
___________
31.12.2004
1 The Chief Engineer (O&M),R.T.P.P. A.P. Generation Corporation Ltd,
V.V. Reddy Nagar, Cuddapah District.
2 The Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Generation Corporation Ltd, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
3 2 CD copies
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…