Telangana High Court
WP/7140/2000 of J. Madhusudhan Vs The A.P. TRANSCO., on 31 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:7140 of 2000 Between: J.Madhusudhan ..... PETITIONER AND The AP Transmission
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO:7140of2000
Between:J.Madhusudhan
AND
The AP Transmission Corporation and others
..... PETITIONER.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. G.V.SHIVAJI
Counsel for the respondents:MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s case for absorptionvide order, dated 20.05.1999 as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner, who claimed to have worked as a contractlabourer, filed Writ Petition No.3771 of 1999 against order, dated21.05.1998 passed by the respondents rejecting his claim forabsorption. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on25.02.1999 directing the respondents to not to disqualify the petitionerfrom consideration for regularisation solely on the ground that hisservices were rendered under a licensed contractor. Subsequently, thepetitioner’s case was re-considered and by order, dated 20.05.1999impugned in this writ petition, his case was again rejected on thefollowing three grounds.
Page 1 of 2
i)By the time of the receipt of the Court directions 50% ofexisting vacancies as on 18.5.97 were filled up with eligible andselected candidates duly following the rule of reservation and novacancy is left over in Jr. Lineman category.existing vacancies as on 18.5.97 were filled up with eligible andselected candidates duly following the rule of reservation and novacancy is left over in Jr. Lineman category.ii)You did not possess S.S.C./ITI qualifications required for thepost of Jr. Lineman.post of Jr. Lineman.
iii)You were under aged as on the date of first engagement.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner hadS.S.C. qualification and his case was unduly rejected by therespondents. From the material filed by the petitioner, it is evident thatthe petitioner failed to file a copy of SSC Certificate in proof of hispassing SSC. In any event, ground No.1 itself is enough to non-suit the petitioner because according to the respondents, all the 50% vacanciesreserved under B.P.Ms.No.36 were filled up with eligible and selectedcandidates duly following the rule of reservation and that no vacancy isleft in the Junior Lineman category for being filled up.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and isaccordingly, dismissed.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31[st] DECEMBER, 2008.
kvni
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…