Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The Eastern Power Distribution Company ... vs S Suryanarayana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1251 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1251 AP
Judgement Date : 14 February, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The Eastern Power Distribution Company ... vs S Suryanarayana on 14 February, 2024

                                         1




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
                                              AMARAVATI
                                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)
                                                                                         [
                                                                                      3463
                                                                                         ]
                              TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY
APHC010197342023                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                     PRESENT


                    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR


                   THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                           WRIT APPEAL NO: 475 OF 2023
Between:

THE EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LTD
AND OTHERS                                       ...APPELLANT(S)
                                      AND

S SURYANARAYANA AND OTHERS                                               ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondents: K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Court made the following Judgment:

1) Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and the

learned Counsel for the Respondents.

2) The Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the following

directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

"10. Assailing the said order, an Appeal was preferred in Writ Appeal Nos. 110 of 2014 and batch, and Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P. disposed of the Appeal on 03.06.2014 with certain observations. Following

the said order, this Court is also inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

a) The restriction of marks for weightage for the service candidates to 20%.

b) The contract labour, who are otherwise eligible to apply, shall be awarded one mark for each completed block of six months of service subject to maximum of 20%.

c) A fresh written test shall be conducted by the respective Discoms for the respective posts for „80‟ marks, by informing all the applicants at least four (04) weeks in advance before conducting of the examinations.

d) the entire process shall be completed within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."

3) Primarily, we are of the considered view that the learned

Single Judge could not have issued the directions of this

nature, in view of the short fact that all the

Petitioners/Private Respondents have gone well past the age

of 50 years and the question of issuing directions to employ

such aged bar persons is unsustainable. That apart, the

process of selection is the prerogative of the employer and the

method and process of selection cannot be dictated by the

Courts and the process of selection has to be left to the hands

of the experts or ought to be in accordance with the cadre and

recruitment rules or policies framed by the competent

authorities.

4) The reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the

orders' of the Coordinate Bench, in our considered opinion,

was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5) Admittedly, even as per the learned Single Judge, the

Petitioners were rendering services as contract labourers and

their engagement with the Appellants Corporation ended in

2001. Despite these stark & revealing facts, the learned

Single Judge has deemed it necessary to issue directions,

which in our considered opinion is wholly unsustainable.

6) Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. Order of the

learned Single Judge is set-aside. Writ Petition stands

dismissed. No order as to costs.

7) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

________________ G.NARENDAR, J

_____________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Sm../...

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter