THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.36259 of 2014
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the second respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Typist vide letter No.CGM(HRD)/GM (IR)/AS-L/POH/H3/WP.No.35731/2013/2014-1 dated 06.11.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the scheme formulated under B.P. (P&G Per) Ms.No. 36 dated 18.05.1997.
2) Heard Sri Sunkari Chandraiah, learned counsel representing Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner worked as contract labour in APTRANSCO from 05.11.1996 to 16.12.1997. While so, third respondent issued notification dated 29.04.2001 calling for applications from the eligible Ex-Casual Labour/VEWs/Contract labours for filling up of the left over vacancies of JLM/JA/LDC/RC/Typist/Sub-Engineer under 50% quota as on 18.05.1997 as per BP M.S. No.36 dated 18.05.1997. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner has applied for the post of Typist on 15.05.2001. Since the authorities PK, J 2 WP_36259_2014 have rejected the case of the petitioner, without assigning any reasons, he approached this Court and filed W.P. No.14142 of 2003 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2004. Pursuant to the said directions issued by this Court, the second respondent passed the order in letter No.CGM (HRD)/GM(S) AS-II/PO.IV/558/04, dated 08.01.2005, negativing the case of the petitioner. Challenging the same, petitioner has again approached this Court and filed W.P. No.35731 of 2013 wherein interim orders were passed by this Court on 16.09.2014. Pursuant to the said interim order, second respondent passed a speaking order dated 06.11.2014 rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment as Typist and therefore the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel has contended that the second respondent has not appreciated the contentions raised in the representation dated 06.03.2013 in a proper perspective and rejected it on flimsy grounds and in a mechanical manner, without verifying the factual aspects and without providing an opportunity to explain or to produce the material in support of his claim before passing the impugned rejection order and the same is not sustainable either under the law or on facts. It is further contended that as per the proceedings in T.O.O.(Addl. Secy-Per) Ms.No.179 dated 30.08.2006, the respondents have withdrawn BP Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 subject to the out come of the PK, J 3 WP_36259_2014 cases pending before Hon'ble High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court or any other Court. Hence, the rejection order is contrary to the Scheme and the petitioner is entitled for appointment as Typist as per the scheme formulated under BP Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.958 of 2008 dated 06.09.2008.
4) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in compliance of the interim order dated 16.09.2014 passed by this Court in W.P. No.35731 of 2013 and the order dated 25.11.2004 passed in W.P. No.14142 of 2003, the representation of the petitioner dated 06.03.2013 was examined carefully along with the certificates submitted by the petitioner issued by one Sri K. Narender and it was found that the certificate was not certified by the competent department officials. Further, it was observed that the agreement reference was added subsequently without endorsement by the competent authority. Hence, the respondents are justified in issuing the proceedings dated 08.01.2005 and 06.11.2014 and in rejecting the case of the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by both the counsel and perused the record.
PK, J
4 WP_36259_2014
6) A perusal of the material on record discloses that as per
T.O.O. Ms.No.179 dated 30.08.2006, the scheme formulated under B.P. Ms. No.36 dated 18.05.1997 was withdrawn subject to out come of the cases pending before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hon'ble Supreme Court or any other Court. Admittedly, no case of the petitioner was pending as on the date of withdrawal of the scheme vide T.O.O.Ms.No.179 dated 30.08.2006. Therefore, the benefit of T.O.O. Ms.No.179 dated 30.08.2006 and so also the judgment passed by this Court in W.A. No.958 of 2008 dated 06.09.2008 cannot be extended to the petitioner. Further, in previous round of litigation, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.14142 of 2003 which was disposed of by this Court on 08.01.2005 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Service Certificate issued by the concerned Contractor countersigned by the officials of the respondent-Organization with reference to the agreements under which the petitioner was engaged as contract labour as on 18.05.1997 and pass appropriate orders. In compliance of the said order, the respondents have examined the case of the petitioner and passed the order dated 08.01.2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Service Certificate issued by K. Narender was not certified by the competent department officials. Further, agreement reference was added subsequently without endorsement by the competent PK, J 5 WP_36259_2014 authority. Though the petitioner has challenged the said order dated 08.01.2005 before this Court in W.P. No.35731 of 2013, but finally the same was dismissed as infructuous on 25.04.2017. In compliance of the interim order dated 16.09.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.No.35731 of 2013, the present impugned order was passed rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any worthwhile orders.
7) It is pertinent to mention that though the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.01.2005 before this Court in W.P. No.35731 of 2013, the legality or otherwise of the order dated 08.01.2005 was not adjudicated upon by this Court since the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. The interim order passed in W.P. No.35731 of 2013 was only to consider the representation of the petitioner.
8) In culmination of the above facts, it is found that the speaking order dated 08.01.2005 passed by the authorities pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P. No.14142 of 2003 is staring at the petitioner as the petitioner himself has invited an order of infructuous in W.P. No.35731 of 2013, which was filed against the order dated 08.01.2005. Admittedly, as on the date of withdrawal of B.P. (P&G Per) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, vide T.O.O. (Addl. Secy-Per) Ms.No.179, dated 30.08.2006, no case of PK, J 6 WP_36259_2014 the petitioner was pending. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition which is filed challenging the order passed by the authorities in consequence to the order dated 08.01.2005, which is admittedly complied with by the respondent authorities, cannot be entertained.
9) That apart, the record further discloses that at the time of filing the present writ petition in the year 2014, the petitioner was aged 50 years and by now he might have attained the age of 59 years. On this ground also this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
10) For the afore-stated reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 15-09-2023.
sur