WRIT PETITION 17715/99 on 24 September 2008

ORDER:

This Writ Petitionis filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for;

.... aVi/rit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents inissuingproceedingsLr.No.SE/O/KNUDE-T/PO/IAO/ADM/S4/D.N0.776/18,dt.27-03-2018 asillegal,arbitraryand set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents[to]fixtheseniorityofthepetitioneronparwithpetitionersinW.P. No. 17715/99 who are juniors to him in sen/ice[in][ fulfillment][ of]the Fundamental Rights Guaranteed under Article 14,16 and 21 ofthe Constitution of India. ”

2. Heard Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for[the][ Petitioner]and Ms.AdarshithaKilaru, learned counsel representingSri Venkata RamaRao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL.and Ms.AdarshithaKilaru, learned counsel representingSri Venkata RamaRao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that[the][ Petitioner][ is][ a]B.A graduate and possessed English and Telugu Typewriting[Higher.]He wasappointed as a Typist in the year 1987 on contract[basis][ in][ the][ Respondent-]Corporation.Learned counsel would further submit that,in spite of severalrepresentations and the writ petitions filed by the[Petitioner][ along][ with][ others,]the Respondent-Authorities have not considered the[seniority][ of][ the][ Petitioner]herein on part with the Petitioners in W.P.No.17715/1999,[who][ are][ juniors][ to]the Petitioner herein, whichis contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteedunder the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would submit that[the][ Petitioner]hasnot possessedrequired educationalqualificationto be appointedasLDC/Typist as per B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997.It[is][ further][ submitted][ that]the Petitioner was appointed on 24.09.2008 and his probation and senioritywere fixed from the same date.Learned Standing Counsel[would][ submit][ that]the representation dated 21.08.2017 of the Petitioner seeking[ seniority] on[ part]with the Petitioners in W.P.No.17715 of 1999 was rejected[since][ the][ Petitioner]herein is not a similarly placed individual.hasnot possessedrequired educationalqualificationto be appointedasLDC/Typist as per B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997.It[is][ further][ submitted][ that]the Petitioner was appointed on 24.09.2008 and his probation and senioritywere fixed from the same date.Learned Standing Counsel[would][ submit][ that]the representation dated 21.08.2017 of the Petitioner seeking[ seniority] on[ part]with the Petitioners in W.P.No.17715 of 1999 was rejected[since][ the][ Petitioner]herein is not a similarly placed individual.

5. Admittedly, the Petitioner has been working as a Typist[since][ 1987][ on]contract basis in the Respondent-Corporation having possessed the requisiteEducational as well as Technical qualifications.The Petitioner herein alongcontract basis in the Respondent-Corporation having possessed the requisiteEducational as well as Technical qualifications.The Petitioner herein along

with other similarly placed contract labour hadfiled[W.P.No.3028]of 2000before the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking[a][ direction][ to][ the]Respondentstoregularize their servicesin termsof B.P.Ms.No.36,dated18.05.1997.During pendency of the said Petition, Petitioners[2]to 4 thereinhad withdrawn the said petition.Subsequently, W.P.No.3028[of][ 2000][ was]allowedvide Order dated07.03.2007,infavourof thePetitionerherein.wherein. Respondents were directed to consider the[case][ of][ the][ Petitioner][ for]regular appointment as LDC/Typistin accordance and to pass appropriateorder within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the saidOrder. As the Respondent had not implemented the said orders, the Petitionerherein filed Contempt Case No.780 of 2007 in W.P.No.3028[of][ 2000][ and][ the]Respondent had issued appointment orders dated 19.09.2008 subject to theresult of writ appeal.

6. Inspiteofseveralrepresentationsof thePetitionertoconsiderhisseniorityonpartwiththePetitionersin W.P.No.17715of1999,astheRespondent did not consider the same, he filed W.P.No.2312[of][ 2018][ before]this Court questioning the inaction of the Respondents[in][ not][ consideration][ his]representation,andthesaidpetitionwasdisposedofdirectingtheRespondents to consider his representation within six[weeks][ from][ the][ date][ of]receiptof copyofthesaidOrder.InaccordancewiththeordersinW.P.No.2312 of 2018 dated 29.01.2018, the Respondent[had][ issued][ speaking]ordervideLr.No.SE/0/KNL/DET/PO/JAO/ADM/S4/D.No.776/18dated27.03.2018 and rejected the representation of the Petitioner[stating][ that][ there]seniorityonpartwiththePetitionersin W.P.No.17715of1999,astheRespondent did not consider the same, he filed W.P.No.2312[of][ 2018][ before]this Court questioning the inaction of the Respondents[in][ not][ consideration][ his]representation,andthesaidpetitionwasdisposedofdirectingtheRespondents to consider his representation within six[weeks][ from][ the][ date][ of]receiptof copyofthesaidOrder.InaccordancewiththeordersinW.P.No.2312 of 2018 dated 29.01.2018, the Respondent[had][ issued][ speaking]ordervideLr.No.SE/0/KNL/DET/PO/JAO/ADM/S4/D.No.776/18dated27.03.2018 and rejected the representation of the Petitioner[stating][ that][ there]

isnosimilaritybetweenthePetitionerhereinandthePetitionersinV\/.P.No.17715 and there are no orders for applying[the][ same][ to][ all][ cases][ who]were appointed under B.P.Ms.No.36.

7. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioner,[as][ seen][ from][ the]appointment order of the Petitioner dated,19.09.2008,itis clearly mentionedtherein that the said order was subject to outcome[of][ W.P.No.17715][ of][ 1999.]Admittedly,thePetitionersinW.P.No.17715of1999arejuniorstothePetitioner hereinascontractlabour and thePetitioner joinedasContractLabour (Typist) in the year 1987 and the Petitioners[in][ W.P.No.17715][ of][ 1999]joined in the year 1997.appointment order of the Petitioner dated,19.09.2008,itis clearly mentionedtherein that the said order was subject to outcome[of][ W.P.No.17715][ of][ 1999.]Admittedly,thePetitionersinW.P.No.17715of1999arejuniorstothePetitioner hereinascontractlabour and thePetitioner joinedasContractLabour (Typist) in the year 1987 and the Petitioners[in][ W.P.No.17715][ of][ 1999]joined in the year 1997.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion,this Courtisof the view that thePetitionersin W.P.No.17715of 1999 and the presentPetitioner are onthesame footing and hence, the same may be extended to[the][ Petitioner][ herein]also.Petitionersin W.P.No.17715of 1999 and the presentPetitioner are onthesame footing and hence, the same may be extended to[the][ Petitioner][ herein]also.

Conclusion

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petitionis disposed of directing the Respondentstofix the notionalseniorityof thePetitioner onpar withthePetitionersinW.P.No.17715 of 1999, without any monetary benefit.There shall be no orderas to costs.tofix the notionalseniorityof thePetitioner onpar withthePetitionersinW.P.No.17715 of 1999, without any monetary benefit.There shall be no orderas to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions,if any, pending shall standclosed.Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJUASSISTANT,REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,SECtTDN OFFICERManaging Director,Managing Director,Office, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist.A.P.S.P.D.C. Limited, Corporate(Operations),A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,Kurnool,(Operations),A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,Kurnool,3. One CC to SRI D KODANDARAMI REDDY Advocate [OPUC]ApSp'bcL°A®vo'clfe'''[g)^?cr^^Counsel For[OPUC]^adarshitha KILARU, Junior Standing CounselApSp'bcL°A®vo'clfe'''[g)^?cr^^Counsel For[OPUC]^adarshitha KILARU, Junior Standing Counsel6.Three CD Copies HIGH COURT

DATED; 29/04/2025

ORDERWP.No.31795 of 2018

DISPOSING THE WPWITHOUT COSTS

^Of andj^zoooVi17 JUN 2J25mjirS-★V