← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/136/2012disposed of no costs

S. Gopi, v. The Superintending Engineer,

2015-08-05R.Kantha Rao5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WP No.136 of 2012 Between:

S. Gopi

...Petitioner

And:

The Superintending Engineer, A.P.Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, Nizamabad & others ... Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may Yes/No be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the Copies of Judgment may Yes/No be marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.136 of 2012 ORDER:

Heard Sri D. Balakishan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner passed Intermediate, ITI (Electrical) and

Typewriting both English and Telugu Higher Grades and registered his name in the employment Exchange. He belongs to S.C. community. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the Notification dated 07.10.2005 and subsequent Notification dated 13/14.02.2006 issued by the respondents inviting the applications for the post of Contract Junior Lineman, he applied for the same. The respondents issued acknowledgement receipt and also sent call letter dated 17.05.2007 directing the petitioner to appear for interview on 28.05.2007. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for interview on the said date and fared well. It is submitted by the petitioner that he came to know reliably that the respondents prepared the list of persons selected for the post and they have been issuing appointments to the candidates, who have obtained orders from this court.

According to the petitioner, the respondents have considered the cases of the candidates, who are below to the petitioner in the merit list. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not issued any appointment even though he is meritorious than some of the candidates, who were appointed on the ground that he could not obtain orders from this court. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him in the post of Junior Lineman pursuant to the interview held in the month of May 2007 and basing on the list prepared by the respondents.

3. The Respondents filed counter-affidavit contending that based on the roster points and after acknowledgment of the conditions, the eligible candidates were appointed in their respective Operation Circles and the said vacancies were filled up as per the guidelines issued by AP TRANSCO dated 18.01.2010. It is further submitted that the selection of the candidates is as per the roster points against above their respective communities and as per their marks secured in ITI qualification and subject to their fulfilment of the other conditions and norms prescribed in the notifications. The main contention of the

respondents is that the petitioner has not applied for the post of Junior Lineman (C) in pursuance of the Notifications and therefore, he cannot be claimed to be appointed in the said post.

4. The contention put-forth by the respondents does not seem to be correct. The petitioner filed copy of the letter sent by the respondents to him informing to appear for interview on 28.05.2007. The version of the petitioner is that he attended the interview and he is in the merit list of the candidates prepared by the respondents. Therefore, the contention put-forth by the respondents that the petitioner did not apply for the post of Junior Lineman (C) does not seem to be correct. It is the version of the petitioner that there are still some vacancies in the posts of Junior Lineman (C).

5. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as Junior Lineman, subject to availability of the vacancies in the said post, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

__________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 05.08.2015 BSS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.136 of 2012

Date: 05.08.2015 BSS