Telangana High Court
R. Sardar And 3 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 25 November, 2021
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.5132 of 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
respondents in non-appointing the petitioners as Junior Linemen
in terms of the call letters issued by the respondent
vide Lr.Nos.SE/OPN/MDK/PO/ADM/C2/D.No.904/2007 dated
04/06/2007 Lr.Nos.SE/OPN/MDK/PO/ADM/C2/D.No.802/2007
dated 19.05.2007 Lr.No.SE/O/ NLG/ Adm/U1/D.No.355/581/07
dated 21/05/2007 and Lr.No.SE/O/NLG/Adm/U1/D.No.355/
535/07 dated 21/05/2007 for the same petitioners had attended
for Pole Climbing Test on the respective dates 06/06/2007,
05/06/2007, 05/06/2007 and 05/06/2007 have been successfully
completed Pole Climbing Test and got merit of the petitioners in
pursuance of the Notification dated 08/06/2006 and revised
Notification dated 20/10/2006 and without filling the notified
posts by the petitioners the respondents issued fresh Notification
No.1 dated 28/09/2019 is an illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory,
unjust, unfair, unreasonable, inequity, whimsical,
unconstitutional, unlawful and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19
and 21 of the Constitution of India and also against to the
Principles of Natural Justice and against to the Catena of
Judgments of an Apex Court and against to the Judgment of Civil
Appeal Nos. 2049-2158 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Civil)
No.15001-15110 of 2013 dated 25/02/2019 and against the
Division Bench Judgment of this Honourable Court in
W.P.No.8794 of 2007 dated 14/03/2012 and Writ Appeal No.1434
of 2009 dated 10/01/2009 and consequently direct the
respondents to appoint the petitioners as Junior Linemen with all
consequential benefits including seniority and other attendant
benefits....".
Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents.
It has been contended by the petitioners that they are fully
eligible and qualified to be appointed as Junior Linemen and they
were initially appointed as contract employees and the
respondents have issued recruitment Notification for filling up the
posts of Junior Linemen on 20.10.2006. Though they were successful
in pole climbing test, their cases were not considered on the ground
that they are younger in age than the persons, who got selected
and on that ground, their cases were not considered for
appointment to the posts of Junior Linemen. In the interregnum,
they were absorbed as Artisans Grade-II.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the litigation, which is
pending in respect of appointment of Junior Linemen, was ended
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2049-2158 of
2019 dated 25.02.2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded
the undertaking given by the respondents that if persons, who
applied for selection as Junior Linemen in 2006 were not appointed
due to condition No.6(iv)(c) of the Revised Notification, dated
20.10.2006, they shall be considered for appointment.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had
contended that the cases of the petitioners are not considered in
terms of condition No.6(iv)(c) of the Revised Notification, dated
20.10.2006 and in view of the undertaking given by the respondents
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents may be
directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to
the posts of Junior Linemen and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents had
contended that if only the petitioners submit fresh representation
before the respondents seeking appointment as Junior Linemen in
terms of condition No.6(iv)(c) of the Revised Notification, dated
20.10.2006, then the respondents would consider the cases of the
petitioners for appointment to the posts of Junior Linemen in view of
the undertaking given before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by
the parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be
disposed of directing the petitioners to submit a fresh representation
seeking appointment to the post of Junior Linemen in terms of
condition No.6(iv)(c) of the Revised Notification dated 20.10.2006
within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Upon such a representation being received, the respondents shall
consider the cases of petitioners and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, within a reasonable period of time,
preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter, strictly in terms
of condition No.6(iv)(c) of the Revised Notification, dated
20.10.2006.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
25.11.2021
Prv
