P. Vijaya Kumar, Warangal Dist. vs Tg.N.P.D.C.L.,Warangal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2428 Tel

             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