Telangana High Court
WP/24165/2006 of Bokka Ravi Raju Vs A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 24165 of 2006 Date: 22.12.2006 Between: Bokka Ravi Raju, S/o Lakshmaiah, aged 38 years, R/o Peneemaka (PO), Tadepalli (Mandal), Guntur District. .... PETITIONER AND A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, rep. by its Managing Director,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 24165 of 2006
Date: 22.12.2006
Between:
Bokka Ravi Raju, S/o Lakshmaiah, aged 38 years, R/o Peneemaka(PO), Tadepalli (Mandal), Guntur District.
AND
.... PETITIONER
A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, rep. by itsManaging Director, Tirupathi and another.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAWrit Petition No. 24165 of 2006
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:
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashingcommunication dated 22.08.2006, whereby the 2[nd] respondent-Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Andhra Pradesh SouthernPower Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter described as‘APSPDCL’) rejected his candidature for appointment to the post ofL.D.C., advertised vide notification dated 14.05.2001, on the ground thatthe service certificate does not contain the particulars of agreements andM-Book.
When the matter is taken up for admission, it is represented bythe learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSPDCL as well asthe learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of this writpetition is squarely covered by the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No. 19736 of 2006 and batch, dated 14.11.2006, wherein this Courtconsidered similar issue and held thus.
“As a sequel to the above, I hold that the rejection ofthe candidature of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary andviolative of the petitioners’ fundamental right to equality inthe matter of employment guaranteed under Article 16 ofthe Constitution.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Communications dated 22.08.2006 issued by respondentNo.2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for theposts specified therein are quashed. The officerconcerned is directed to reconsider the candidature of thepetitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance withthe relevant rules and instructions within a period of twomonths.
The petitioners are given liberty to submitrepresentations before respondent No.2 within a period ofthree weeks from today giving the agreement numbers and M-books evidencing their performance as contract laboursduring the particular period. The officer concerned mustexamine each case on its merits and then take decision onthe eligibility and entitlement or otherwise of the petitionersto be appointed against the advertised posts and passreasoned orders.
While disposing of the writ petitions in the mannerindicated above, I make it clear that the petitioners shall befree to file applications under Right to Information Act,2005 and seek particulars of Measurement Books from theconcerned authority of the Corporation.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions,W.P.M.P.Nos.24917, 24918, 24919, 24920, 24950, 24985,24989, 24990, 24991, 25001, 25006, 25130 and 25137 of2006 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposedof as infructuous.”
Following the same, this writ petition is also disposed of on thesame terms. No costs.
___________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Date: 22.12.2006NSR/ISL