Telangana High Court
Md. Jamal vs The Telangana State Southern Power ... on 29 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.15597 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.15864 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.15888 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.16598 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.16682 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.16775 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.16781 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.16883 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17112 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17324 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17377 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17409 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17428 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17478 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17520 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17604 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17790 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.17817 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.18048 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.18051 OF 2020;
W.P.Nos.15597 of 2020
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
2
WRIT PETITION NO.18104 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.18201 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.18296 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.18452 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.18730 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.19079 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.21073 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.21557 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.22548 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.23048 OF 2020;
WRIT PETITION NO.25062 OF 2022;
AND
I.A.NO.1 OF 2023 IN W.P.NO.17324 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER
In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners are the candidates
who participated in the selection process and are aspiring to be selected
to the posts of Junior Lineman in Telangana State Southern Power
Distribution Company Limited ('TSSPDCL' in short) pursuant to the
recruitment Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
2. Since the facts and circumstances requiring consideration for
adjudication of all these Writ Petitions revolve around the subject
Recruitment Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019, all the Writ
Petitions were clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by
this common and consolidated order.
W.P.Nos.15597, 15864, 15888, 16598, 16682, 16775, 16781, 16883, 17324, 17377,
17409, 17478, 17520, 17604, 18051, 18104, 18452, 23048 of 2020 and 25062 of
3. In W.P.Nos.15597, 15864, 15888, 16598, 16682, 16775, 16781,
16883, 17324, 17377, 17409, 17478, 17520, 17604, 18051, 18104,
18452, 23048 of 2020 and 25062 of 2022, similar grounds are raised.
The petitioners therein are all challenging the action of the respondents
in implementing the Presidential Order to the notified Junior Lineman
posts in Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019 and the action of
respondent No.3 in not permitting the petitioners to the Pole Climbing
Test which was scheduled to be held on 02.09.2020 in spite of
submitting all the Study Certificates pertaining to Classes 1 to 7, as
arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and also as contrary to the Presidential Order
issued by the respondent State of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.124,
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
General Administration (SPF-MC) Department, dt.30.08.2018 and
consequently to read down the Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019
and to direct the respondent TSSPDCL to permit the petitioners to
participate in the Pole Climbing Test based on their merit and social
status without reference to the Presidential Order, or alternatively by
verifying their Study Certificates from 1st to 7th Classes, the petitioners
may be appointed as Junior Linemen based on their success in the Pole
Climbing Test to be held, with all consequential benefits and to pass
such other order or orders as may be just. In a batch of similar cases,
this Court had granted interim orders directing the respondents to
conduct Pole Climbing Test to the petitioners therein. The respondents
filed counter affidavits in some cases only.
4. Subsequently, the respondents issued Notification No.03 of 2022
dt.09.05.2022 with similar conditions which was challenged in
W.P.No.25062 of 2022. Thereafter, in the counter affidavit filed in
W.P.No.25062 of 2022, there was a reference to the amendments made
to Rule 22-B of the APSEB Service Regulations, specifying that unit of
appointment for the post of Junior Lineman is Operation Circle/District
and that for 95% of the posts, preference will be given to the
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
District/Discom candidates. There was no reference to the amendments
to Rule 22-B of the APSEB Service Regulations in the counters filed in
the above batch of Writ Petitions. In view of the above, the petitioners
in W.P.No.15888 of 2020 and W.P.No.25062 of 2022 have filed
Interlocutory Applications for amendment of prayer challenging the
Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019 and also the instructions in
C.O.O.Ms.No.611 dt.05.02.2009, S.P.O.O.Ms.No.730 dt.26.09.2015
and S.P.O.O.Ms.No.M1 dt.26.09.2019 as being against the Presidential
Order. In addition to the above, in W.P.No.25062 of 2022, the amended
prayer was to challenge the Notification No.3 of 2022 dt.09.05.2022 as
well. The amendment of prayers in the Writ Petitions were allowed vide
orders dt.30.11.2022 and 14.02.2023 respectively.
5. I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.17324 of 2020 is for amendment of
prayer in the above lines and in addition thereto, it is also prayed that
issuing the above office orders and the Notification No.3 of 2022
dt.09.05.2022 without completing the selection process pursuant to the
Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019 is bad in law. In view of the
orders allowing the amendment of prayers in W.P.Nos.15888 of 2020
and 25062 of 2022, this petition in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.17324
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
of 2020 is also allowed and the Registry is directed to amend the prayer
accordingly.
6. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Writ
Petitions were not maintainable as the writ petitioners have participated
in the selection process. This Court, vide orders dt.30.11.2022 has
rejected the said objections.
7. The factual matrix and the relief prayed in W.P.Nos.15597,
15864, 15888, 16598, 16682, 16775, 16781, 16883, 17324, 17377,
17409, 17478, 17520, 17604, 18051, 18104, 18452, 23048 of 2020 and
25062 of 2022 are one and the same and therefore, brief facts in one of
these Writ Petitions, i.e., in W.P.No.15597 of 2020, which cover the
factual scenario of other Writ Petitions, is being dealt with as follows:
8. The petitioner in W.P.No.15597 of 2020 belongs to BC-D
community. He studied Classes 1 to 3 in the years 1991-92 to 1993-94
and Classes 4 and 5 in the years 1994-95 to 1995-96 at Ieeza Village and
Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Classes 6 and 7 in the years 1996-97 to
1997-98 at Kalvabugga Village, Orwakal Mandal, Kurnool District and
Classes 8 to 10 in the years 1998-99 to 2000-2001 again at Ieeza Village
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Thus, out of 7 years of study of
Classes 1 to 7, the petitioner in W.P.No.15597 of 2020 had studied for a
period of 5 years at Ieeza Village which falls under the erstwhile
Mahabubnagar District and the present Jogulamba Gadwal District.
9. The petitioner in W.P.No.15597 of 2020 claims to have passed
ITI in Electrician Trade from Fathima Industrial Trade Centre (ITC),
Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District and that thereafter, he has been working
as Sub-Station Operator from 01.07.2007 onwards and thereafter, as
Artisan Grade-II at 33/11 KV Sub-Station, Amberpet, Hyderabad up to
the date of filing of the Writ Petition and his Employee ID is stated to be
5106973.
10. Respondent No.1 issued Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019
for recruitment of Junior Linemen posts and the petitioner in
W.P.No.15597 of 2020 submitted his online application on 10.11.2019.
The written test was held on 15.12.2019 and the petitioner got 30 marks
and he was granted 20 marks on account of his service weightage and
his revised rank was 4 in the Jogulamba Gadwal District. It is submitted
that call letter dt.30.07.2020 was issued by respondent No.3 scheduling
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
the Pole Climbing Test on 02.09.2020. On 23.08.2020, the petitioner
claims to have made an application to his school for issuance of
bonafide certificate of Classes 1 to 3, but the same was not issued by the
Head Master as he was on home quarantine as he was declared Covid
positive. On 02.09.2020, the petitioner claims to have submitted all
other certificates for verification except the bonafide certificate of
Classes 1 to 3, but he was not permitted to Pole Climbing Test due to
the said deficiency. Subsequently, by 2.00 PM, the petitioner secured the
bonafde certificate and submitted the same, but respondent No.3 refused
to receive the same and refused to permit him to participate in the Pole
Climbing Test on the ground that the time for Pole Climbing Test was
already over. Therefore, on the very next day, i.e., on 03.09.2020, the
petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent for consideration
of his case for Pole Climbing Test, but no orders were passed on the
same and therefore, the W.P.No.15597 of 2020 has been filed.
11. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging reserving 95%
of the posts to the District candidates by implementing the Presidential
Order to the Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019. It is submitted that
the posts of Junior Lineman are not civil posts and therefore, the
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Presidential Order could not have been applied to the said posts. It is
submitted that in some of the Districts, there are no posts in open
category and almost all the available posts are allotted to local
candidates, thereby making the local/open reservation a mere illusion. It
is submitted that respondent No.1 has not constructed or developed the
Sub-Stations in each District uniformly, but has constructed/developed
the Sub-Stations based on the necessity, availability of water, etc., as the
case may be, on the strength and weight of the local politicians and
therefore, there is no equitable distribution of posts in all the Districts
and that the respondents cannot take advantage of their own lapses and
deny appointments to candidates of some of the districts where there are
lesser number of Sub-Stations. In support of his contention that the
Presidential Order can only be applied to civil posts, the learned counsel
for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of
Ch. Raji Reddy Vs. APSRTC 1; Dr. N. Ram Gopal Vs. Executive
officer, TTD 2; and Govt. of A.P. Vs. P. Vema Reddy 3. He relied upon
the provisions of Article 371D(1) of the Constitution of India which
2003 (4) ALD 96
2005 (6) ALD 255
2007 (4) ALD 209 (DB)
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
empowers the President of India to issue Presidential Orders with
respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh having regard to the requirements
of the State as a whole, for providing equitable opportunities and
facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State, in the
matter of 'Public Employment' and 'Education' and accordingly,
different provisions could be made for various parts of the State under
Article 371D(2) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that Sub-
Article (10) of Article 371D provides for its overriding effect of the
Presidential Order issued under the said Article over the other provisions
of the said Article. It is submitted that since the Presidential Order deals
with civil posts under the State, the Presidential Order cannot be made
applicable to the notified Junior Linemen posts as they are not civil
posts under the State. It is submitted that when respondent No.1 cannot
adopt/implement the Presidential Order directly, it cannot adopt or
implement the spirit of the Presidential Order indirectly as it is also a
settled principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done
indirectly. The learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore seeking
setting aside of the Notification or reading down of the subject condition
in the Notification.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
12. In W.P.No.15888 of 2020, the petitioner has also challenged the
amended Regulation No.22-B of the APSEB Service Regulations in
Part-II as adopted by TSTRANSCO. It is submitted that the petitioner
herein belongs to BC-B community and studied Classes 1 to 10 at
Vijetha High School (English Medium), Panduranga Nagar, Balanagar
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. The said place of study falls
under the erstwhile Ranga Reddy District and the present Medchal-
Malkajgiri District. The petitioner studied and passed I.T.I. in electrician
trade from Shubhodaya Industrial Training Centre, Gumudur,
Mahabubabad, Warangal District during August, 2016 to July, 2018. He
participated in the recruitment process for Junior Lineman pursuant to
Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019 and he secured 29 marks and
obtained 383 rank in Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner was issued
call letter dt.31.07.2020 for participating in the Pole Climbing Test on
27.08.2020 and the petitioner appeared for the Pole Climbing Test in
Ranga Reddy District, but he was not permitted on the ground that as
per the present Presidential Order, he cannot be permitted to Pole
Climbing Test at Ranga Reddy/Cyber City Circle. The petitioner has
requested that he be allowed to participate in the Pole Climbing Test at
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Medchal-Malkajgiri District, but the petitioner was not permitted and
therefore he approached this Court by filing the present W.P.No.15888
of 2020 challenging the action of the respondents in implementing the
Presidential Order retrospectively to the notified Junior Linemen posts
in Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019 and the action of respondent
No.3 in not permitting the petitioner for the Pole Climbing Test
scheduled on 27.08.2020 in spite of submitting all the study certificates
pertaining to Classes 1 to 10 as illegal and arbitrary and also
consequently to read down Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019 and
to permit the petitioner to the Pole Climbing Test and to issue
appointment letter on the basis of his success in the Pole Climbing Test.
This Court, vide interim order dt.17.09.2020, had directed the
respondents to permit the petitioner to the Pole Climbing Test. The Pole
Climbing Test was conducted on 30.09.2020 in which the petitioner
participated and according to the petitioner, he has passed the said test.
Subsequently, while filing of the counter affidavit in similar matter, i.e.,
W.P.No.25062 of 2022 which was filed challenging the Notification
No.03/2022, dt.09.05.2022 on similar grounds, the respondents had
contended that they have amended the existing APSEB Service
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Regulations by issuing S.P.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms.No.M1 dt.26.09.2019
and thereafter, they have issued the Notification dt.28.09.2019 and in the
said S.P.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms.No.M1 dt.26.09.2019, Amendment-I,
Amendment-II were issued. The respondents also claimed that while
exercising the powers conferred under Section 79(c) and (k) of the
Electricity (Supply) Act of 1948, TSSPDCL issued amendment orders
to Regulation No.22-B in Part-II of the APSEB Service Regulations as
adopted by the APCPDCL (now TSSPDCL) and para 2(B) of C.O.O.
(CGM-HRD) Ms. No.576 dt.06.06.2007, as shown below as
Amendment-I and Amendment-2 in para 2(B) of the C.O.O. (CGM-
HRD) Ms. No.576 dt.16.01.2009 was substituted with the definitions of
(1) 'District Candidate', (2) 'Discom Candidate'. In view of the same,
the petitioner in W.P.No.15888 of 2020 filed an amendment petition in
I.A.No.1 of 2022 for amending the prayer in the Writ Petition to declare
the action of respondent No.1 in issuing C.O.O. Ms. No.189
dt.06.06.2007, the consequential orders in C.O.O. Ms. No.611
dt.05.02.2009, S.P.O.O. Ms. No.730 dt.26.09.2015 and S.P.O.O. Ms.
No.M1 dt.26.09.2019 as illegal and arbitrary and to read down the
Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019 as it being unconstitutional and
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
contrary to the Presidential Order issued by respondent No.5 vide
G.O.Ms.No.124, General Administration (SPF-MC) Department,
dt.30.08.2018. The said amendment petition has been allowed by this
Court vide orders dt.14.02.2023.
13. As discussed in para 5 above, similar Application in I.A.No.1 of
2023 was made in W.P.No.17324 of 2020 seeking amendment of the
prayer to declare the action of respondent No.1 in issuing
C.O.O.Ms.No.189 dt.06.06.2007, the consequential orders in
S.P.O.O.Ms.No.730 dt.26.09.2015 and S.P.O.O.Ms.No.M1
dt.26.09.2019 and the Notification No.03 of 2022 dt.09.05.2022, for
direct recruitment to the posts of Junior Linemen, without completing
the selection process pursuant to the Notification No.01 of 2019
dt.28.09.2019 and the action of the respondents in implementing the
Presidential Order to the notified Junior Linemen posts in the
Notification No.03 of 2022 dt.09.05.2022, as illegal and arbitrary. In
view of allowing I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.15888 of 2020, this
Application in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.17324 of 2020 is also now
allowed and the Registry is directed to take on record the amended
prayer in W.P.No.17324 of 2020.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
14. In addition to the argument that the post of Junior Lineman is not
a civil post and therefore the Presidential Order is not applicable to such
posts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the erstwhile
APSEB was constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,
1948 and under Section 79(c) and (k) of the said Act, the Board is
empowered to make regulations.
15. The second ground raised is that when the petitioner studied
Classes 2 to 10 from 2000 to 2009, there was no Medchal-Malkajgiri
District and that it was part of Ranga Reddy District and the school
authorities issued the certificates accordingly. It is submitted that the
petitioner furnished the particulars in the online application accordingly,
as otherwise, it would amount to implementing the new Districts/new
Presidential Order with retrospective effect. It is submitted that by way
of Annexure-III to the Notification, the respondents are implementing
the new Districts with retrospective effect and on that ground they did
not permit the petitioner to the Pole Climbing Test and their action is in
violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is
submitted that the contentions of the respondents with regard to Article
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
371D, the old and new Presidential Orders, 95% local quota, 5% open
quota under new Presidential Order are misconceived. It is submitted
that the notified posts are not the civil posts and therefore, the
respondents have no authority to implement the Presidential Order
though the object may be laudable. It is submitted that when the
respondents have conducted the State-wide written test commonly for
all the Districts candidates, they ought to have conducted the Pole
Climbing Test also accordingly based on merit, social reservations and
ought to have selected the meritorious candidates who passed the Pole
Climbing Test and ought to have issued the appointment orders
accordingly to different circles by considering their options as they are
incompetent to implement the Presidential Order and there is a specific
bar under Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and the Parliament
has not enacted any law under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India.
It is further submitted that the local cadres were not organised so far by
the Government of Telangana based on the new Presidential Order and
therefore, even assuming that the new Presidential Order is applicable to
them, by any stretch of imagination, the respondents cannot treat the
notified Junior Linemen Posts as a local cadre under the new
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Presidential Order and implement the new Presidential Order under that
assumption. It is submitted that the amended Regulation 22-B of the
APSEB Service Regulations in Part-II, as adopted by TSTRANSCO,
provides for special provision regarding appointment by direct
recruitment following the spirit of Presidential Order. It is submitted that
as the Presidential Order cannot be applied to the posts of Junior
Linemen, as the notified posts are not civil posts and further that the
amended Regulation 22-B has not been published in the Official Gazette
as required under Section 79(c) of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act,
1948, and since the said amendment was given by way of issuance of an
Executive Proceeding, as such the same cannot override the
Constitutional Provision, i.e., Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India
which prohibits reservation or discrimination on the basis of one's
residence. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.15888 of 2020 sought
declaration that Regulation No.22-B of the APSEB Service Regulations
in Part-II as adopted by TSTRANSCO as unconstitutional.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after
bifurcation of the State, respondent No.4 has issued a new Presidential
Order vide G.O.Ms.No.124, General Administration (SPF-MC)
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Department, dt.30.08.2018 and Section 3 of the said Order empowers
the Government for the State of Telangana to organise classes of posts
in the civil services, classes of civil posts under the State, into various
local cadres for different districts of the State within a period of 36
months from the commencement of that Order and since the Junior
Linemen posts under respondent No.1 company cannot be treated as
civil posts, respondent No.1 company is not empowered to organise the
Junior Linemen posts as District cadre posts under the guise of
implementing the Presidential Order. Thus, according to him,
implementing the Presidential Order by providing 95% posts to the local
candidates of the respective districts and 5% posts to the open category
candidates is beyond their power and on that ground alone, the
Notification is liable to be set aside. He thus prayed for a direction to the
respondents to consider and allow the petitioners in W.P.No.15597 and
15888 of 2020 and batch for Pole Climbing Test and to appoint them as
Junior Linemen without reference to the Presidential Order or in the
alternative in their earlier Districts of study or the new marked District
on the basis of their merit.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
17. In this case, by virtue of the interim order dt.21.09.2020, the
petitioner was permitted to appear for Pole Climbing Test. However, the
result could not be announced without the permission of this Court.
According to the petitioner, he has passed the Pole Climbing Test
conducted on 30.09.2020.
18. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed their counter affidavits along
with stay vacate petitions in both the above Writ Petitions. It is stated
that the respondent TSSPDCL is carrying out electricity distribution and
is catering to electricity requirements in 15 districts of Telangana. It is
submitted that the post of Junior Lineman is a lower level post in the
operation division and the nature of work is that they are required to
work in shifts round the clock to ensure proper distribution of power
supply which includes climbing of pole, attending to transformers, etc. It
is submitted that in rural areas, power break downs occur frequently due
to heavy rains, winds and other climatic conditions and the Junior
Lineman stationed at the place of posting is required to attend to the
sudden break down of the power supply and keeping that in view, the
post of Junior Lineman is treated as a village/gram panchayat level post
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
and they were required to acquaint themselves with the local conditions
and the area of the power distribution, so as to offer better services to
the consumers which include majority of the farmers living in the rural
areas; and that the Junior Lineman is required to attend to the consumer
calls as entrusted to him. It is submitted that keeping in view these facts
only, the unit of appointment of Junior Lineman is kept at Operation/
Circle level. It is submitted that since the post of Junior Lineman falls
under Operation Subordinate Services and since there are no statutory
rules/regulations for recruitment to the post of Junior Linemen, the
guidelines issued by the State Government, which formed part of the
recruitment Rules in the year 2006, were followed by making written
test as one of the eligibility criteria.
19. It is submitted that Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019 was
issued and in the said Notification, number of posts available in each of
the Operation Units within the territorial jurisdiction of TSSPDCL were
specified and it was also clearly mentioned that 5% of the vacancies
were unreserved, subject to the selection criteria specified in the
Notification. It is submitted that all the applicants were aware of the
specification of the Notification with regard to the eligibility criteria and
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
recruitment policy and reservations in favour of local candidates and
having participated in the recruitment process, they could not have
challenged the same. It is submitted that the minimum educational
qualification for the post of Junior Lineman is SSC with ITI
qualification in the Electrical Trade/Wireman or two years Intermediate
vocational course in the electrical trade and accordingly, Notification
No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019 was issued inviting applications for filling up
of 2,500 number of vacancies by direct recruitment/general recruitment
in the Operation Units of TSSPDCL. It is stated that Para I (5) (b) of the
Notification specifies the mode of payment of fee for making online
application, wherein it was specified that the candidate has to visit the
website to view the detailed Notification and user guide and after
payment of fees, the candidate is required to click on the link 'submit
application' to complete the process of application and the candidates
were required to invariably fill all the relevant fields in the application
and immediately on submission of the application, the applicant would
get an acknowledgement in the form of a downloadable pdf document. It
is submitted that para No.III of the Notification specified the procedure
for uploading the application form and the applicants were required to
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
read the user guide for online submission of applications and then only
proceed further. It is submitted that as per the User Guidelines, the
candidates were required to click the particulars column available in the
application form to view the description and Column No.7 provided for
permanent address and under Column No.7a, the candidates were
required to choose the name of the district from the drop down list and it
was made clear that the candidates have to choose their district as per
the new districts only.
20. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents,
all the details were given in the Notification and the candidates were
required to go through the entire Notification carefully before
submitting their applications and it was clear from the Notification that,
95% of the posts will be reserved for the respective district candidates. It
is submitted that accordingly, the candidates who got the qualifying
marks as well as the weightage marks, were called for verification of
their certificates and thereafter only, they were allowed for the Pole
Climbing Test and wherever the candidates could not produce the
relevant documents to satisfy their local candidature as stated in their
applications, they were not permitted to the Pole Climbing Test. It is
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
stated that in W.P.No.15597 of 2020, the Writ Petitioner had given his
permanent address as Ieeza Village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal
District and when the petitioner attended the certificates verification and
Pole Climbing Test on 02.09.2020, he failed to produce school study
certificates for the period of study from Classes 1 to 3 and as per the
other study certificates furnished by him, he studied Classes 4 and 5 in
Jogulamba Gadwal District and Classes 6 and 7 in Kurnool District,
Andhra Pradesh State and therefore, he was not treated as a local
candidate belonging to Jogulamba Gadwal District as per Para-VI of the
Notification and he was not permitted for Pole Climbing Test. It is
submitted that though the petitioner was required to appear for Pole
Climbing Test on 02.09.2020, he made a representation only on
03.09.2020 and therefore, it is clearly after the date fixed for Pole
Climbing Test. It is further stated that Article 371D of the Constitution
of India has no application to the present Notification and that the
vacancies have been notified to give opportunity to all the candidates
and also to keep in view the nature of the posts and Unit of appointment.
It is also stated that out of 2,500 posts notified, 1,747 posts were filled
up and the balance posts could not be filled up as there are no eligible
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
candidates belonging to the respective reserved districts/categories. It is
submitted that the petitioners herein do not fit into the unfilled posts,
which are earmarked for specified categories in the respective Circles
and therefore, their candidature could not have been considered. Thus,
the respondents prayed for vacation of the interim order and dismissal of
the Writ Petitions.
21. The main crux of the arguments of the petitioners is that the posts
of Junior Linemen are not civil posts and therefore, the Presidential
Order under Article 371D of the Constitution of India is not applicable
to the said posts. The respondents 1 to 3 have also filed counter affidavit
stating that the said posts are not civil posts and that the Presidential
Order is not applicable to the said posts. The respondents have,
however, taken a stand that keeping in view the exigency of service and
requirements of services of Junior Linemen in the local area, it was
decided to reserve 95% of the posts for local candidates of the respective
districts and 5% to be open for all other candidates. The respondents
have relied upon the amended Regulation 22-B of the APSEB Service
Regulations in Part-II as adopted by TSTRANSCO for providing
reservation to the local candidates.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
22. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned
counsel for the respondents have filed their written arguments in support
of their contentions and also copies of case law on which they have
placed reliance upon during the course of their arguments.
23. In view of the above, the issues to be decided in this batch of Writ
Petitions by this Court are:
(i) Whether the Presidential Order is applicable to the posts of
Junior Linemen and if not, then, whether the spirit of the
Presidential Order can be applied in the guise of amended
Regulations?
(ii) Whether the alleged amended Regulation 22-B of the
APSEB Service Regulations in Part-II is violative of
Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India?; and
(iii) Whether the alleged amended Regulation 22-B of the
APSEB Service Regulations in Part-II has the statutory
authority?
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
24. As regards the first issue, this Court finds that Article 16(2) of the
Constitution of India specifically prohibits discrimination based on
residence except under Article 371D of the Constitution of India and the
notified Junior Lineman posts not being civil posts, the respondents
cannot apply the Presidential Order to the said posts. It is also to be seen
that the respondents themselves have admitted in the counter affidavit
that Presidential Order is not applicable to these posts. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
respondents, the Presidential Order is not applicable to the subject posts.
25. It is also seen that the issue as to whether APGENCO (as it then
was) was an instrumentality of State or a local authority under Article 12
of the Constitution of India and whether the posts of Junior Plant
Attendant (which was equivalent to the post of Junior Lineman),
thereunder, can be categorised as a post in civil services or civil post
under the State or local authority, has been considered by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh (as it then was) in the case
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
of P.Divya and others Vs. M.D., APPGCL, Hyderabad and others 4,
and it was held that even though the APGENCO qualifies as a State
instrumentality for the purpose of bringing it within the ambit of Article
226 of the Constitution of India, it is essentially a corporate entity and,
at best, it can be called as a public sector undertaking. It was further held
that employment in its service, therefore, does not fulfil the
requirements to attract the Presidential Order and that the Presidential
Order has to be construed strictly and has application only to civil
services and/or the holder of a civil post in the State Government or its
local authorities and therefore, issuance of G.O.Ms.No.610
dt.30.12.1989 by the State Government linking directly to the
Presidential Order and observing and implementing the spirit of the
Presidential Order to APGENCO cannot be said to be a legally valid
exercise. The Court has also observed that it is time for the APGENCO
to realise its errors in this regard and take corrective measures. It is also
noticed that similar reservation of 80% of the posts was made for locals
and 20% to the non-locals. Notifications were issued on 05.01.2011 and
17.10.2011 for the post of Junior Plant Attendant. In the Notifications,
2019 (1) ALT 536 (D.B.)
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
priority was given to the candidates who were locals in the districts
where the power generating stations of APGENCO were situated. The
challenge in the Writ Petitions was aimed at Clause 5 of the
Notifications providing for reservation of 80% of the posts in favour of
the locals. It is also noticed that the Division Bench referred to
Regulation 22-B in Part II and Regulation 22(i) in Schedule III in Part-II
of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations
(APSEB Service Regulations) framed under the erstwhile Andhra
Pradesh State Electricity Board in exercise of power under Section 79(c)
of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 which speak of 'following
and observing' the spirit of the Presidential Order. The Division Bench
of this Court in paras 34 to 46 has held as under:
Application of the 'spirit of the Presidential Order' to the selection:
34. Article 371D of the Constitution was inserted therein by
the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973, with effect
from 01.07.1974, and applied to the erstwhile State of Andhra
Pradesh. It was intended to give effect to certain safeguards in the
matter of employment opportunities for residents of Telangana region.
Thereby, the President of India was empowered to provide, by order,
for equitable opportunities and facilities to denizens in different parts
of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in matters of public
employment and education. It is in exercise of this power that the
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Presidential Order came to be issued. However, the Presidential
Order applies only to posts in the civil services and classes of civil
posts under the State and its local authorities. Apart from this, Article
16(3) of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to make law
prescribing residence within a State as a requirement for employment
or appointment to an office under the Government of that State or
under any local authority within that State. In the cases on hand, it is
nobody's case that Article 16(3) of the Constitution has application.
Further, it may be noted even the Parliament can make law
thereunder keeping in mind residence in the entire State and not in
particular districts thereof.
35. The issue is whether the prescription of a reservation for
local district candidates in the subject selections can find protection
by extension of the 'spirit of the Presidential Order'. To do so, the pre-
requisite would be that the post of Junior Plant Attendant must qualify
as a post in the civil service of the State or be a civil post under the
State or its local authorities.
36. At this stage, it would be useful to advert to curial wisdom
on this aspect of the matter.
37. In STATE OF GUJARAT V/s. RAMAN LAL KESHAV LAL
SONI (1) (1983) 2 SCC 33, a Constitution Bench considered the issue
as to whether members of the Gujurat Panchayat Service were
Government servants. In this context, the Constitution Bench observed
that it is a question of fact in each case as to whether a person is a
servant of the State or not.
38. Earlier, in STATE OF ASSAM V/s. SHRI KANAK
CHANDRA DUTTA (2) AIR 1967 SC 884, the question before a
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Constitution Bench was whether a Mauzadar was a person holding a
civil post under the State. Observing that there was no formal
definition of 'post' and 'civil post', the Constitution Bench concluded
that it was a post on the civil as distinguished from the defence side of
the administration, that is, an employment in a civil capacity under
the Union or a State. It was observed that a person who holds a civil
post under a State holds 'office' during the pleasure of the Governor
of the State, except as expressly provided by the Constitution. It was
further observed that a post under the State would mean a post under
the administrative control of the State. As the State had the power and
the right to select and appoint a Mauzadar and also had the power to
suspend or dismiss him, as he was a subordinate public servant
working under the supervision and control of the Deputy
Commissioner, receiving by way of remuneration a commission on
collections and sometimes a salary, there was a relationship of master
and servant between the State and him. He was accordingly held to be
the holder of a civil post under the State.
39. In SOM PRAKASH REKHI V/s. UNION OF INDIA (3)
(1981) 1 SCC 449, the Supreme Court observed that the Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited was a limb of the Government, being
an agency of the State, but that conclusion would not mean that for
the purpose of Article 309 or otherwise, the said Government
company would be a State.
40. In DR.GURJEEWAN GAREWAL V/s. DR.SUMITRA
DASH (4) (2004) 5 SCC 263 = 2004 (5) ALT 25.3, 31.4 (DN SC), the
Supreme Court affirmed that a person cannot be said to be holding a
civil post under the State merely because his salary was paid from the
State fund or because the State exercises a certain amount of control
over the post. On this basis, the Post Graduate Institute of Medical
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Education & Research, Chandigarh, was stated to be not a 'State' for
the purpose of Article 311 and the employees therein did not hold civil
posts.
41. In S.KESAVA RAO V/s. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, APSPDC LTD., TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (5)
2012 (5) ALT 744 (D.B.) = 2012 (5) ALD 71 (DB), a Division Bench
of this Court had occasion to deal with the post of Junior Lineman in
the service of the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Limited and its four distribution companies. The Division Bench
categorically held that the APSEB Service Regulations i.e., Parts I, II
and III thereof, did not deal with appointment to the post of Junior
Lineman and various other posts in the Operation and Maintenance
services. Referring to the fact that the post of Helper under the
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Department Operation Subordinate
Service Rules, which came into force on 01.01.1948, was re-
designated as Junior Lineman, the Division Bench dealt with the case
in terms of the said rules and the notifications issued in the context
thereof. However, the issue arising presently in relation to the district
local candidate reservation did not fall for consideration before the
Division Bench in that case.
42. In P.ANIL KUMAR V/s. THE TELANGANA STATE
POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED, VIDYUTH
SOUDHA, HYDERABAD (6) W.P.No.20544 of 2017 and W.P.(PIL)
No.149 of 2017 Dt.18.09.2018, a Division Bench of this Court was
considering the issue of employment in the Transmission Corporation
of Telangana Limited and its distribution companies. The Division
Bench observed that it is doubtful whether appointment to posts in
these organisations could be elevated to the status of public
employment governed by Article 16 of the Constitution and concluded
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
that appointment to a post or absorption in a post in these
organisations could not be equated to an office under the State.
43. Applying these principles, the post of Junior Plant
Attendant cannot be categorized as a post in the civil services or a
civil post under the State or in a local authority. No doubt, the
APGENCO qualifies as a State instrumentality for the purpose of
bringing it within the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution, but it
cannot be lost sight of that the APGENCO is essentially a corporate
entity and, at best, it can be called a public sector undertaking.
Employment in its service therefore does not fulfil the requirements to
attract the Presidential Order.
44. It may also be noted that Article 371D of the Constitution
is an exception to the general rule that residence cannot be the basis
for providing public employment opportunities and has its roots in the
peculiar circumstances that were prevailing in the then State of
Andhra Pradesh. In exercise of power conferred by the said Article,
the President of India promulgated the Presidential Order. However,
the said Presidential Order has to be construed strictly and has
application only to civil services and/or the holder of a civil post in
the State Government or its local authorities. We have already held
that by no stretch of imagination can the APGENCO, a Government
Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956,
be considered the 'State' or a 'local authority' for the purposes of the
Presidential Order. That being so, merely because the State
Government thought it appropriate to issue a directive in the context
of G.O.Ms.No.610 dated 30.12.1989, which was again linked directly
to the Presidential Order, the question of 'observing and
implementing the spirit of the Presidential Order' in the APGENCO
cannot be said to be a legally valid exercise. It is time for the
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
APGENCO to realize its errors in this regard and take corrective
measures.
45. We need say no more.
Challenge to the Regulations:
46. In so far as the challenge to the Regulations is concerned,
we find merit in the submission of Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior
counsel, that none of the said Regulations had application to the post
of Junior Plant Attendant in the service of the APGENCO at the
relevant point of time. The subsequent amendment to Regulation 22
admittedly had no retrospective effect and is therefore of no
relevance. At that time, this post was covered by the Service Rules of
1948 and was not governed by the APSEB Service Regulations.
Regulation 22-B specifically mentioned the posts to which it applied
i.e., the cadres of Assistant Engineer in the Engineering Service and
Junior Accounts Officer in the Accounts Service. The said Regulation
was therefore not applicable to the post of Junior Plant Attendant in
the APGENCO which did not even find mention in the constitution of
the service set out in Part-III of the APSEB Regulations. Sub-
Regulation 22(i) in the III Schedule to Part-II also specifically
mentioned extension of the spirit of the Presidential Order to the
cadres of Sub-Engineer in Engineering Service; LDC and Typist in
Accounts Service; and Office Sub-ordinate in General Service. The
challenge to Regulations 22 and 22-B in Part-II and Sub-Regulation
22(i) in the III Schedule to Part-II of the APSEB Regulations is
therefore without basis in so far as the subject posts are concerned
and as the said challenge was made only under the assumption that
the local district reservation in the Notifications dated 05.01.2011 and
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
17.10.2011 was based on the said Regulations, there is no necessity
for this Court to consider the validity of the said Regulations."
Thus, it can be seen that the issue as to whether Presidential Order is
applicable to the post of Junior Lineman which is not a civil post is
already settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
P.Divya and others Vs. M.D., APPGCL, Hyderabad and others
(4 supra). The issue No.1 is thus answered in favour of the petitioners.
26. As regards Issue Nos.2 and 3, this Court finds that this Court by
order dt.30.11.2022 allowed the amendment petition in I.A.No.2 of 2022
in W.P.No.25062 of 2022. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the respondents could not have amended the Regulations
as they are in violation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and
further, it is submitted that the said amendments could not have been
issued under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 since the said Act has
already been repealed under Section 185 of the electricity Act, 2003 and
the said Act came into force on 10.06.2003. It is submitted that under
Section 185(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the existing Regulations are
saved, but it does not empower the Electricity Board to amend the
Regulations under a repealed Act and therefore, the amendments have
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
no statutory force and are likely to be declared as ultra vires for the
reason that
(i) the amendments were not published in the official Gazette
as required under law, i.e., Section 79(c) of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948; and
(ii) the amendments issued by the 1st respondent company are
contrary to Article 16(2) read with Article 16(3) of the
Constitution of India.
It is further submitted that the amendments made by the 1st respondent
company were not placed/laid before the State Legislature as required
under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and therefore,
the said amendments can be treated as only the executive instructions
and they cannot amend the statutory regulations issued by the erstwhile
APSEB and they have no statutory force. In support of this contention,
he placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Harla Vs. The State of Rajasthan 5, B.K.Srinivasan and
AIR 1951 SC 467
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
others Vs. State of Karnataka and others 6, State of Maharashtra Vs.
Mayer Hans George 7 and Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai vs. Anil Shantaram Khoje and others 8. He further referred
to Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India which specifically prohibits
discrimination based on residence and relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Singh and
others Vs. Union of India and others 9. Regulation 22-B is admittedly
amended vide S.P.O.O.(COM-HRD) Ms.No.M1, dt.26.09.2019 and it is
noticed therefrom, that these amendments are purportedly made in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 79(c) and (k) of the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and Amendment-I thereunder refers to
direct recruitment to the cadres mentioned therein and the
discoms/circles under unit of appointment shall be as mentioned therein
and for the post of Junior Lineman, the unit of appointment is Operation
Circle/District and Note (i) thereunder refers to 95% of the posts for
which, preference shall be given to Discom candidates/District
candidates, as the case may be, and Note (ii) specifies the districts
(1987) 1 SCC 658
AIR 1965 SC 722
(2016) 15 SCC 726
(1997) 1 SCC 60 = AIR 1997 SC 1610
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
falling within the Discom and Amendment-II gives the meanings of
'District Candidate' and 'Discom Candidate'.
27. Arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on issue
No.2:
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, however,
submitted that the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1948 is a Central Act
under which the Electricity Board was constituted under Section 5 of the
said Act. It is submitted that Section 79 of the said Act empowered the
Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board by Notification in the Official
Gazette to make regulations not inconsistent with the Act and the rule
made thereunder to provide for all or any of the matters, namely, (c) the
duties of officers and other employees of the Board and their salaries,
allowances and other conditions of service. He submitted that
subsequently, the A.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 was passed which
provided that subject to Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 56 of the
said Act, upon the establishment of the Commission the provisions of
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
shall, in so far as the State is concerned, be read subject to the
modifications and reservations provided thereunder. It is submitted that
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, in respect of the matters
provided in Sections 5 to 18, 19, 20, 23 to 27, 37, 40 to 45, 46 to 54, 56
to 69, 72 and 75 to 83 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, to the extent
this Act has made specific provisions, the provisions of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 shall not apply in the State. Therefore, according to
him, the provisions of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
are preserved under the A.P. Electricity Reform Act, 1998. It is
submitted that even though Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003
repealed the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act,
1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998, Sub-
Section (3) of Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is saving the
provisions and the provisions of the enactments specified in the
Schedule, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Electricity Act,
2003, shall apply to the States in which such enactments are applicable.
He also referred to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service
Regulations and para 6 thereof which permitted the Board to adopt its
own classification of service, re-arrange grades, refix responsibilities
and prescribe minimum educational, technical and other qualifications
as may be considered suitable for making selection and appointments to
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
posts in each class of service. It is submitted that it is under these rules
and regulations that the TSSPDCL has drawn the power to frame service
regulations and also make amendments thereto. Thus, according to him,
the earlier regulations are not necessary to be followed in view of the
amendments and power of the respondents to amend the regulations is
traceable to statute. He thus prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions on
this ground as well.
28. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record
and for ready reference, the relevant provisions of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 are reproduced hereunder:
"79. Power to make regulations:- The Board may by
notification in the official gazette make regulations not inconsistent
with this Act and the rule made thereunder to provide for all or any of
the following matters, namely:--
(a) .... .... .... ....
(b) .... .... .... ....
(c) the duties of officers and other employees of the Board and
their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service;
(d) .... .... .... ....
(e) .... .... .... ....
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
(f) .... .... .... ....
(g) .... .... .... ....
(h) .... .... .... ....
(i) .... .... .... ....
(j) .... .... .... ....
(k) any other matter arising out of the Board's functions under
this Act for which it is necessary or expedient to make
regulations:
Provided that regulations under clauses (a), (d) and (jj) shall
be made only with previous approval of the State Government and
regulations under clauses (h) and (i) shall be made with the
concurrence of the Authority."
"79-A. Laying of notification before the State Legislature:--
Every notification issued under Section 55 by the State government
under Section 78 and every regulation made by the Board under
Section 79, shall be laid, as soon as may be, before the State
Legislature."
The A.P. Electricity Reform Act, 1998:
"56. Effect of the Act on the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and
the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948:--
(1) .... .... .... ....
(2) .... .... .... ....
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
(3) Subject to sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section upon the
establishment of the Commission the provisions of the
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply)
Act, 1948 shall in so far as the State is concerned, shall be
read subject to the following modifications and
reservations.
INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910
(i) .... .... .... ....
(ii) .... .... .... ....
(iii) .... .... .... ....
(iv) .... .... .... ....
ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1948
(v) .... .... .... ....
(vi) In respect of matters provided in Sections 5 to 18, 19,
20, 23 to 27, 37, 40 to 45, 46 to 54, 56 to 69, 72 and 75
to 83 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, to the extent
this Act has made specific provisions, the provisions of
the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 shall not apply in the
State."
The Electricity Act, 2003:
"185. Repeal and saving.-- (1) Save as otherwise provided in
this Act, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910), the Electricity
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
(Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) and the Electricity Regulatory
Commissions Act, 1998 (14 of 1998) are hereby repealed.
(2) .... .... .... ....
(a) .... .... ....
(b) .... .... ....
(c) .... .... ....
(d) .... .... ....
(e) .... .... ....
(3) The provisions of the enactments specified in the Schedule,
not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall apply to the
States in which such enactments are applicable."
Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service
Regulations:
"6. The Board may adopt its own classification of service, re-
arrange grade, refix responsibilities and prescribe minimum
educational, technical and other qualifications as may be considered
suitable for making selection and appointments to posts in each class
of service."
29. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, it is noticed that the impugned amendment is made in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 79(c) and (k) of the
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is noticed that the Electricity (Supply)
Act, 1948 has been repealed by the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section
185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the saving clause under which all the
amendments to such Regulations made prior to the amendments are
saved. Subsequent thereto, if the amendments were to be made, they
were to be made only under Section 185(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003
as is done by the respondent authorities while issuing the amendments to
Regulation 22 of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-II and Regulation
2 of APSEB Regulations Part-III vide T.G.O.O.
No.202/CGM(HR)/2015 dated 27.08.2015 and also amendment to
Regulation 22 of APSEB Service Regulations Part-II as adopted by
TSTRANSCO vide TOO (CGM-HRD-Per) Ms.No.174 dt.09.09.2015.
Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
S.P.O.O.(CHM-HRD) Ms.No.M1, dt.26.09.2019 cannot become a
regulation unless and until it is approved by the government and it is
published in the Official Gazette. It is not the case of the respondents
that such publication is not necessary. Further, it is noticed that the
Notification under challenge is dated 28.09.2019 and the
S.P.O.O.(CHM-HRD) Ms.No.M1, dt.26.09.2019 is issued just two days
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
prior to the Notification. Therefore, it cannot be expected that the
candidates would be aware of the said S.P.O.O.(CHM-HRD)
Ms.No.M1, dt.26.09.2019 without it being published in the Official
Gazette. For this reason also, the amended Regulations applying the
reservation of 95% of the posts to the local candidates of respective
Discom and District, as the case may be, cannot be considered as
statutory amendment.
30. Further, the earlier amendments after the repeal of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 by the Electricity Act, 2003 are all in respect of
Operation and Maintenance Service and were in respect of Junior Plant
Attendants, Dozer Operators, Junior Lab Assistants and its equivalent
and below cadres. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of P.Divya
and others Vs. M.D., APPGCL, Hyderabad and others (4 supra) has
also brought out the history of the rules and regulations and has
observed that by Memo dt.23.10.1994, the erstwhile Board approved the
re-designation of the post of helper in the O&M/Construction
Establishment and thereby, in Operation Circles/TLC/Construction
Circles, the post of Helper was re-designated as Junior Lineman while in
Generation Stations/Projects, the post of Helper was re-designated as
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Junior Plant Attendant and also that vide letter dt.24.04.2007, the
Principal Secretary to Government, Public Enterprises (III) Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh addressed to APGENCO had stated that
the 'spirit of the Presidential Order' could be observed while making
direct recruitment in the local cadre appointments to officers under the
public sector undertakings and thereupon, the APGENCO issued
G.O.O.No.186/CGM(A)/2007 dt.05.07.2007 stating that after duly
examining the matter at the Board level and upon careful consideration,
the APGENCO had decided to implement the 'spirit of the Presidential
Order' while making direct recruitment in the local cadre appointments
in APGENCO and in the Operation and Maintenance Department of the
APGENCO, amongst various other posts, the post of Junior Plant
Attendant was also mentioned stating that it should be treated as a
district cadre post and the level of operation should be at the station
level. This letter has been approved by the Government and it was on
the strength of these communications that the APGENCO issued
G.O.O.No.186 dt.05.07.2007 and subsequently G.O.O.No.276/JS(Per)/
2008 dt.02.09.2008. Thus, it is noticed that whenever there is an
amendment to the Service Regulations, they have been amended by
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
issuance of G.O. and under Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897,
G.Os. are required to be published in the Official Gazette in order to
attain statutory authority. For this proposition, this Court draws the
support from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of Harla Vs. The State of Rajasthan (5 supra), B.K.Srinivasan and
others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (6 supra), Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Anil Shantaram Khoje and
others (8 supra) and Jitender Singh Rangta and others Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh and others 10. The relevant paras are reproduced
hereunder for ready reference:
Harla Vs. The State of Rajasthan (5 supra):
"6. The only other fact of consequence is that on 19-5-1938 S.1,
Jaipur opium Act, was amended by the addition of sub-s. (c) which
ran as follows:
"(c) It shall come into force from 1-9-1924."
The offence for which the appellant was convicted took place on
8-10-1948.
.... .... .... ....
2020 3 ShimLC 1720 : 2020 0 Supreme(HP) 865
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
8. We do not know what laws were operative in Jaipur regarding the
coming into force of an enactment in that State. We were not shown
any, nor was our attention drawn to any custom which could be said
to govern the matter. In the absence of any special law or custom, we
are of opinion that it would be against the principles of natural justice
to permit the subjects of a State to be punished or penalised by laws of
which they had no knowledge and of which they could not even with
the exercise of reasonable diligence have acquired any knowledge.
Natural justice requires that before the law can become operative it
must be promulgated or published. It must be broadcast in some
recognisable way so that all men may know what it is; or at the very
least, there must be some special rule or regulation or customary
channel by or through which such knowledge can be acquired with the
exercise of due and reasonable diligence. The thought that a decision
reached in the secret recesses of a chamber to which the public have
no access and to which even their accredited representatives have no
access and of which they can normally know nothing, can nevertheless
affect their lives, liberty and property by the mere passing of a
Resolution without anything more is abhorrent to civilised man. It
shocks his conscience. In the absence therefore of any law, rule,
regulation or custom, we hold that a law cannot come into being in
this way. Promulgation or publication of some reasonable sort is
essential."
B.K.Srinivasan and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others
(6 supra):
"15. There can be no doubt about the proposition that where a
law, whether parliamentary or subordinate, demands compliance,
those that are governed must be notified directly and reliably of the
law and all changes and additions made to it by various processes.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Whether law is viewed from the standpoint of the "conscientious good
man" seeking to abide by the law or from the standpoint of Justice
Holmes's "unconscientious bad man" seeking to avoid the law, law
must be known, that is to say, it must be so made that it can be known.
We know that delegated or subordinate legislation is all-pervasive
and that there is hardly any field of activity where governance by
delegated or subordinate legislative powers is not as important if not
more important, than governance by parliamentary legislation. But
unlike parliamentary legislation which is publicly made, delegated or
subordinate legislation is often made unobtrusively in the chambers of
a Minister, a Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary.
It is, therefore, necessary that subordinate legislation, in order to take
effect, must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner,
whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent
statute or not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication
or promulgation. Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of
publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the
parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes
the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be
sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not
prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation
prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take
effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised
official channel, namely, the Official Gazette or some other
reasonable mode of publication. There may be subordinate legislation
which is concerned with a few individuals or is confined to small local
areas. In such cases publication or promulgation by other means may
be sufficient [Narayana Reddy v. State of A.P., (1969) 1 Andh WR
77]."
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Anil
Shantaram Khoje and others (8 supra):
"13. It is relevant for us to mention Section 23 of the Bombay
General Clauses Act, 1904, which provides thus:
"23.Publication of orders and notifications in the
Official Gazette to be deemed to be due publication.--Where,
in any Bombay Act (or Maharashtra Act), or in any rule
passed under any such Act, it is directed that any order,
notification or other matter shall be notified or published, then
such notification or publication shall, unless the enactment or
rule otherwise provides, be deemed to be duly made if it is
published in the Official Gazette."
14. We are immediately reminded of the observations made
in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala [Babu Verghese v. Bar
Council of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 422 : (1999) 1 SCR 1121] , when
this Court was called upon to consider a case under the Advocates
Act. While doing so, we applied the principles earlier enunciated
in Taylor v. Taylor [Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426] and
in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor,
(1935-36) 63 IA 372 : (1936) 44 LW 583 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)] . The
Court observed as follows: (Babu Verghese case [Babu
Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 422 : (1999) 1 SCR
1121] , SCC p. 432, para 31)
"31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if
the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any
statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all."
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
15. In this conspectus we find ourselves unable to accept the
position favoured by the High Court in the impugned judgment [Anil
Shantaram Khoje v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, (2010) 2
Bom CR 123 . The extant Rules would become operative only from the
date of its promulgation by publication in the Official Gazette i.e. on
28-4-2011. Promotions made prior to 28-4-2011 under the extant
Rules promoting Shri Anil Shantaram Khoje (contesting Respondent
1), Shri B.P. Kolekar (contesting Respondent 5) and Shri P.J. Patil to
the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner could not have been
effected in the absence of publication of the extant Rules in the
Official Gazette. We note that Shri Anil Shantaram Khoje and Shri
B.P. Kolekar have already retired from the post of Deputy Municipal
Commissioner while Shri P.J. Patil who was promoted on 5-7-2010 to
the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner, is still holding the post.
Being mindful of the fact that their promotion and retiral and other
consequential benefits would be adversely impacted by our judgment,
we direct that the promotion effected prior to 28-4-2011 and
consequential retiral and other benefits should not be altered to their
detriment."
31. In view of the same, the amendments made to Regulation 22-B in
Part-II of APSEB Service Regulations by virtue of S.P.O.O.(CGM-
HRD) Ms.No.M1 dt.26.09.2019 cannot be held to have statutory force.
32. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Government of A.P. and others Vs. P.Vema Reddy and others
(3 supra), while considering the amendments made to the A.P. School
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Education Teachers and other Employees (Abolition of Existing Service
Cadres and Regulation of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Act,
2005 and the Legislative competence to do so, has held that the
Government has no power to organise local cadres on its own except on
an order of the President and also organisation of local cadres by the
State on its own amounts to prescription of residence in a part of State as
a qualification for public employment which is violative of Article 16(2)
of the Constitution of India and therefore ultra vires the Presidential
Order.
33. Another Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. N. Ram Gopal
Vs. Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupathi
and others (2 supra) has also held that Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanam
(TTD) being a juristic entity and being distinct from State or 'local
authority', the posts in TTD are not civil posts under local authority and
therefore, the Presidential Order cannot be extended to employees of
TTD under Article 371D of the Constitution of India. Similar
observation was made in the case of Ch.Raji Reddy and others Vs.
APSRTC and another (1 supra).
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
34. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey
Shyam Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others (9 supra) has
held that in a recruitment, selection being made zone-wise is in violation
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. For the sake of ready
reference, the relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:
"8. It is needless to emphasis that the purpose and object
behind holding a recruitment examination is to select suitable and
best candidates out of the lot and such an object can only be achieved
by making a common select list of the successful candidates belonging
to all the zones. On the other hand if zone-wise selection is made then
various candidates who appeared in some of the zones and secured
more marks than those who are selected from other zones would be
deprived of their selection resulting into great injustice and
consequent discrimination. Thus there can be said to exist no nexus
between the aforesaid process of zone-wise selection and the object to
be achieved, that is, the selection of the best candidates. That being so
the process of selection as envisaged in paragraph 16 of the
advertisement in question and reproduced in the earlier part of this
judgment would lead to discriminatory results because by adopting
the said process of zone-wise selection would result in the devaluation
of merit at the selection examination by selecting a candidate having
lesser marks over the meritorious candidate who has secured more
marks and consequently the rule of equal chance for equal marks
would be violated. Such a process would not only be against the
principles enunciated in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution but it
would also result in heart burning and frustration amongst the young
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
men of the country. The rule of equality of opportunity for every
individual in the country is an inalienable part of our constitutional
guarantee and that being so a candidate who secures more marks
than another is definitely entitled to get preference for the job as the
merit must be the test when selecting a candidate for recruitment for
the posts which are advertised. In the present case admittedly the
process of selection as envisaged in paragraph 16 of the
advertisement in question is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India as it has been demonstrated from the marks list
of the appellants placed before us at the Bar during the course of
arguments that they had secured more marks than those secured by
some of the selected candidates.
9. In the case of Rajendran Vs. State of Madras & Ors.
(1968(2) SCR 786) this Court had struck down the districtwise
distribution of seats for the medical admission as providing for
unitwise allocation was held to be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution on the ground that it might result in candidates of
inferior calibre being selected in one district and those of superior
calibre not being selected in another district. Similarly in the case of
Peeriakaruppan Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1971 (2) SCR 430)
unit-wise allocation of seats was also held to be void and was struck
down as discriminatory. Again in the case of Nidamarti Mahesh
Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1986 (2) SCC 534) region-
wise scheme adopted by the State Government was held to be void
and struck down by this Court by holding that it would result in
denial of equal opportunity and was thus violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. The ratio of these decisions of this Court is fully
attracted to the facts of the present case in which the process of
selection on the zonal basis will also result in denial of equal
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
opportunity and would be violative of Article 14 and we hold
accordingly.
10. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondents that this process of zone-wise selection is in vogue since
1975 and has stood the test of time can not be accepted for the simple
reason that it was never challenged by anybody and was not
subjected to judicial scrutiny at all. If on judicial scrutiny it cannot
stand the test of reasonableness and constitutionality it cannot be
allowed to continue and has to be struck down. But we make it clear
that this judgment will have prospective application and whatever
selections and appointments have so far been made in accordance
with the impugned process of selection shall not be disturbed on the
basis of this judgment. But in future no such selection shall be made
on the zonal basis. If the Government is keen to make zone-wise
selection after allocating some posts for each zone it may make such
scheme or rules or adopt such process of selection which may not
clash with the provisions contained in Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India having regard to the guidelines laid down by
this Court from time to time in various pronouncements. In the facts
and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. The
appeals and writ petitions are allowed as indicated above."
35. In view of the above, it is clear that the respondents could not
have reserved 95% of the posts to local candidates without applying the
Presidential Order. Admittedly, the Presidential Order is not applicable
to the posts and the respondents are also admitting that they are not
applying the Presidential Order to these posts. Therefore, the
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
respondents also cannot apply the 'spirit of the Presidential Order' to the
appointments to be made to these posts. In view of the same,
Regulation 22-B in Part-II of the APSEB Service Regulations as
amended under S.P.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.M1 dt.26.09.2019 is held
to be not amended in accordance with law and hence has no statutory
force and hence the respondents are directed to make appointments
without providing any local/district level reservation.
36. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Mallesh Korukoru and others Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its
Principal Secretary and others 11 for the proposition that
administrative action of the State should not be interfered with by the
Courts. He relied on the conclusions of the Court at Para 81 as under:
"81. From the above precedential case law on all the four
aspects it is, thus, safe to conclude that:
a) It is permissible for the employer to formulate a scheme to
appoint the services of temporary employees whose
appointment was irregular, but not illegal, and who have
2020 SCC OnLine TS 1073
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
been continuously working for more than ten years without
the intervention of the Courts;
b) In the process of direct recruitment, it is open to the
employer to permit temporary employees, and not
governed by the directions in paragraph 53 of Umadevi, to
compete in regular recruitment, (i) by relaxing age
restriction; and (ii) by assigning weightage to such
service;
c) It is for the employer to prescribe procedure of selection
for direct recruitment to public employment;
d) While prescribing procedure of selection, it is permissible
for the employer to apportion marks for temporary service,
(seniority for waiting for employment after acquiring
education/professional and technical qualifications, age,
etc.).
e) The scope of judicial review in matters of prescribing
qualifications, procedure of selection, and method of
selection is very limited. The Writ Court cannot act as
Court of appeal, and cannot determine what qualifications
can be prescribed to hold a post; it cannot prescribe the
procedure of selection to make regular recruitment. Only
when there is patent illegality in the selection
procedure/process would the writ Court interfere."
In respect of these issues, the Full Bench has held that it is for the
employer to prescribe the qualifications required to hold a post and it is
equally for the employer to prescribe the procedure for selection and to
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
recruit eligible and suitable persons for a post. Therefore, according to
him, the Court should not interfere with the selection process adopted by
the respondents in these cases.
37. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.17324,
17377, 17478, 17520, 17790 and 17817 of 2020 has placed reliance
upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union
of India and another Vs. International Trading Co. and another 12
and Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others 13 in support of his contention that the basic requirement of
Article 14 of the Constitution is fairness in action by the State, and non-
arbitrariness in essence and the substance is the heartbeat of fair play. It
is submitted that actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial
review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible
reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. He submitted that the
scope of judicial review may vary with reference to the type of matter
involved, but the fact that the action is reviewable, irrespective of the
sphere in which it is exercised, cannot be doubted. He thus submitted
(2003) 5 SCC 437
(1991) 1 SCC 212
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
that the order of the respondents being arbitrary is amenable to judicial
review.
38. Having regard to the above contentions, this Court finds that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while defining the scope and ambit of judicial
review has held that every administrative action may not be amenable to
judicial review, but the facts and circumstances of the case would
determine whether judicial review is permissible or otherwise. In these
cases before this Court, the respondents have applied the 'spirit of the
Presidential Order' to the posts which are not civil in nature and
therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be fair and
reasonable and therefore, judicial review is permissible in these cases.
Further, this Court is not dealing with the qualifications or the procedure
adopted by the respondents in making the appointments.
39. As regards a query from the Bench as regards the appointments
already made pursuant to Notification No.01/2019, the learned counsel
for the respondents submitted that though 2,500 vacancies were
advertised under the said Notification, all the vacancies could not be
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
filled up for want of eligible candidates and in respect of eligible
candidates, appointments have already been made.
40. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that during the
pendency of these Writ Petitions, the respondents are also going to issue
a fresh Notification for recruitment of Junior Linemen in 2023 including
the vacancies which were not filled up pursuant to 2019 Notification.
Therefore, vide orders dt.17.04.2023 in W.P.No.25110 of 2022 and
batch, this Court had directed the respondents to reserve the number of
posts equivalent to number of petitioners in these Writ Petitions for the
purpose of appointments of the petitioners herein in case they succeed in
the Writ Petitions before issuing the subsequent Notification. The
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted that
though the petitioners are challenging the application of the Presidential
Order and the amendments of the Regulations subsequently making the
reservation, he submitted that the petitioners are not seeking setting
aside of the appointments already made but are only seeking
consideration of their cases for appointment as Junior Lineman without
reference to their local area in the left over vacancies.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
41. In view of the above and as some of the appointments were
already made in the year 2019 and the successful candidates were not
made parties to these Writ Petitions, this Court is not inclined to set
aside the appointments of all the persons appointed pursuant to the
Notification of 2019. However, in the vacancies that are left over and as
directed by this Court, which were reserved for the successful
candidates in these Writ Petitions, the respondents are directed to
consider the cases of the writ petitioners for appointment as Junior
Linemen on the basis of their merit and rule of social reservation subject
to their qualifying in the pole climbing test irrespective of their local
area. In respect of such candidates, for whom pole climbing test was not
conducted, the respondents may now conduct the test within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if they
succeed, their cases also may be considered for appointment.
W.P.No.25062 of 2022 has been filed challenging the Notification
No.03/2022 dt.09.05.2022 issued for direct recruitment of 1000
vacancies of Junior Linemen in TSSPDCL. It is submitted that the said
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Notification has been cancelled by the TSSPDCL vide letter No.79-
A1/2021 dt.25.08.2022. Therefore, this Writ Petition has become
infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed.
W.P.Nos.17428, 17790, 17817, 18048, 18201, 18296, 18730, 19079, 21073 and
21557 of 2020
43. In view of the above decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.15597,
15864, 15888, 16598, 16682, 16775, 16781, 16883, 17324, 17377,
17409, 17478, 17520, 17604, 18051, 18104, 18452, 23048 of 2020 and
25062 of 2022, these Writ Petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.17428, 17790, 17817,
18048, 18201, 18296, 18730, 19079, 21073 and 21557 of 2020 are also
disposed of directing the respondents to apply the above decision in
W.P.No.15597 of 2020 and batch and consider the cases of the
petitioners herein accordingly.
Casewise discussion:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
could not furnish Classes 1 to 3 study certificates and that his place of
study falls within Jogulamba Gadwal District and when he obtained the
certificates and tried to produce the same, the same was not accepted by
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
the respondent company and that the respondent company also treated
the petitioner as non-local of Jogulamba Gadwal District and did not
permit him to Pole Climbing Test. It is submitted that subsequently,
pursuant to the interim direction of this Court dt.21.09.2020, the
petitioner has been allowed to participate in the Pole Climbing Test, but
the results were not announced. According to the petitioner, he was
qualified in the Pole Climbing Test and since he has study certificates of
Classes 1 to 3 and studied at Jogulamba Gadwal District, he should be
considered for the Junior Lineman Post notified in Notification No.01 of
2019.
45. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of local candidates to the posts of Junior Linemen. Therefore,
the respondents are directed to consider the certificates produced by the
petitioner with regard to Classes 1 to 3 and after verification of the
same, if the petitioner is found to be eligible, he shall be considered for
the Junior Lineman post irrespective of the contention of the learned
counsel for the respondents that the post is filled up by the next
candidate and that there is no vacancy, as at the time of hearing on
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
14.02.2023 and 17.04.2023 in W.P.No.25110 of 2022 and batch, the
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are sufficient
vacancies which remained unfilled in the Notification of 2019 and
sufficient number of posts were directed to be reserved by this Court.
Therefore, the petitioner herein shall be considered against the vacancy
in Notification of 2019 in the order of his merit. With these directions,
W.P.No.15597 of 2020 is disposed of.
The case of the petitioner herein is that he was not considered for
further selection process only on the ground that while filling up the
application, he had stated that he had studied in Ranga Reddy District,
whereas as per new Presidential Order, his place of study fell within
Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Therefore, he was held to be eligible to be
considered under 5% quota vacancies in Ranga Reddy District and since
he was not within zone of selection under 5% quota, he was not
considered.
47. Vide order dt.17.09.2020, this Court had directed the respondents
to conduct Pole Climbing Test to the petitioner and according to the
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
petitioner, he was successful in the Pole Climbing Test which was
conducted on 30.09.2020 pursuant to the interim directions of this
Court. It is submitted that there are 5 vacancies in BC-E category in
Notification No.01 of 2019 and therefore, the petitioner should be
considered in the order of merit.
48. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of reservations to the local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of
the petitioner herein against the vacancies available in BC-E category in
Notification No.01 of 2019 in the order of his merit. W.P.No.15864 of
2020 is accordingly disposed of.
The petitioner herein applied for the post under 95% quota in
Ranga Reddy District, but at the time of certificates verification, it was
found that the petitioner studied Classes 2 to 10 in Medchal Malkajgiri
District which was in the earlier Ranga Reddy District. The respondent
company considered his case under 5% quota vacancy in Ranga Reddy
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
District as non-local on the ground that he is not within the zone of
selection and he was not permitted to participate in the Pole Climbing
Test.
50. Vide order dt.17.09.2020, this Court had directed the respondents
to conduct Pole Climbing Test to the petitioner and according to the
petitioner, he has participated and has been successful in the Pole
Climbing Test.
51. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner
belongs to BC-B community and BC-B vacancy in Ranga Reddy
District under 95% quota is now notified as carry forward vacancy in
JLM 2023 Notification.
52. Since the said vacancy has not been filled up in the Notification
No.01 of 2019, this Court directs the respondents to consider the
petitioner against the vacancy in BC-B category under Notification
No.01 of 2019 in the order of his merit. W.P.No.15888 of 2020 is
accordingly disposed of.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
The petitioners herein were not allowed to participate in the Pole
Climbing Test on the ground that they have not submitted study
certificates of a particular District.
54. By virtue of interim order of this Court dt.25.09.2020, the
petitioners were permitted to participate in the Pole Climbing Test on
30.09.2020.
55. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner
Nos.1 and 3 failed in the Pole Climbing Test and therefore, they are not
eligible for consideration. As regards petitioner No.2, it is submitted that
he has not submitted study certificates on the date of Pole Climbing
Test/certificate verification and in respect of petitioner No.4, the
remarks of the Selection Committee are that he does not belong to
Ranga Reddy District and he has not furnished BC community
certificate.
56. Vide orders dt.28.06.2023, on the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 failed in the Pole
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Climbing Test, this Court closed this Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.16598
of 2020 as infructuous as against them, while holding that the Writ
Petition survives in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 4 only.
57. The contention of petitioner Nos.2 and 4 was that their certificates
were verified, but petitioner No.2 was held to be belonging to Medchal-
Malkajgiri District and not old Ranga Reddy District and in respect of
petitioner No.4, he claimed to be belonging to Mahabubnagar District.
58. Since petitioner Nos.2 and 4 have succeeded in Pole Climbing
Test and also claimed to be possessing necessary certificates, in view of
the finding of this Court that the Presidential Order will not apply to the
present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply the rule of
reservation to local candidates to the posts of Junior Linemen, this Court
directs the respondents to consider the certificates submitted by
petitioner Nos.2 and 4 and if they are otherwise eligible, their case shall
be considered in the vacancies of Notification No.01.2019 dt.28.09.2019
which have been carried forward but reserved in the Notification of
2023 by virtue of the interim orders of this Court dt.14.02.2023 and
17.04.2023 in W.P.No.25110 of 2022 and batch, in the order of their
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
merit. W.P.No.16598 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of in respect of
petitioner Nos.2 and 4.
In this Writ Petition, all the three petitioners were not permitted to
appear for the Pole Climbing Test on the ground that they do not belong
to local cadre as per their study certificates. By virtue of the interim
order granted by this Court dt.28.09.2020, the petitioners were permitted
to the Pole Climbing Test conducted on 30.09.2020, but petitioner No.3
failed in the Test and therefore, he is not eligible for consideration.
60. As regards petitioner Nos.1 and 2, both belong to SC category and
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that SC vacancy in
Mahabubnagar District under 95% quota is now notified as carry
forward vacancy in JLM 2023 Notification. By virtue of the interim
order of this Court dt.17.04.2023, the unfilled posts of JLM notified in
Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019 were directed to be reserved.
The respondents are directed to consider petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein in
the vacancies reserved in 2019 Notification in the order of their merit.
W.P.No.16682 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of in respect of
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and it is dismissed in respect of petitioner No.3.
No order as to costs.
The petitioner herein claimed under 95% quota of Nalgonda
Circle, whereas he was found to be belonging to new District Suryapet.
As per the interim order of this court dt.29.09.2020, the petitioner was
permitted to participate in the Pole Climbing Test and he was successful
in the Test. However, according to the learned counsel for the
respondents, there are no vacancies in ST category in Nalgonda District.
In view of the finding of this Court that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of reservation to the local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen, the petitioner is eligible to be considered and the respondents
are directed to consider the case of the petitioner herein against the
unfilled vacancies of JLM in 2019 Notification in the order of his merit.
W.P.No.16775 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
The petitioners herein have applied under 95% quota of
Mahabubnagar Circle, whereas, petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 were found to
have studied in Ranga Reddy District and petitioner No.3 studied
Classes 1 to 7 in Ranga Reddy District, but did not submit his SSC
original certificate. Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 belong to BC-A
community and petitioner No.4 belongs to SC community.
63. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all the BC-A
vacancies in Mahabubnagar District are filled up and SC vacancy in
Mahabubnagar under 95% quota is now notified as carry forward
vacancy in JLM 2023 Notification.
64. Since the petitioners have been found successful in the Pole
Climbing Test and in view of the finding of this Court that the
Presidential Order will not apply to the present batch of cases and that
the respondents cannot apply the rule of reservation to local candidates
to the posts of Junior Linemen, the respondents are directed to consider
the cases of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 against the unfilled vacancies of 2019
carried forward in JLM 2023 Notification in the order of their merit.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Petitioner No.4 shall however, be considered for appointment only if he
furnishes the original copy of his SCC certificate. W.P.No.16781 of
2020 is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
The petitioner herein had applied for Mahabubnagar Circle under
95% quota, but on the ground that he had studied Classes 1 to 7 in
Narayanpet District (which fell in old Mahabubnagar District), he was
held to be not eligible for consideration under Mahabubnagar Circle.
66. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of reservation to local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen. Therefore, if the petitioner has not been permitted to the Pole
Climbing Test, he shall now be permitted to appear to the Pole Climbing
Test and if he is found successful therein, then he shall be considered
against the vacancy available in ST category which was available under
Mahabubnagar District now notified as carry forward vacancy in JLM
2023 Notification, in the order of his merit. W.P.No.16883 of 2020 is
accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
67. W.P.Nos.17324 and 17377 of 2020
The petitioner in W.P.No.17324 of 2020 had applied for 95%
quota for Mahabubnagar District, whereas he was found to have studied
in new Ranga Reddy District, which was within old Mahabubnagar
District. Since he was not within zone of selection under 5% quota
vacancy in Mahabubnagar District, he was not considered. By virtue of
interim order dt.05.10.2020 of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to
appear for Pole Climbing Test and he was successful therein. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there are no
vacancies in Mahabubnagar District.
68. In the case of W.P.No.17377 of 2020, the petitioner had applied
for Narayanpet District under 95% quota, but as per his study
certificates, he studied Classes 1 to 7 in Mahabubnagar District and
therefore, he was found to be eligible to be considered under 5% quota
in Narayanpet. Since he was not coming within the zone of
consideration for selection, he was not permitted. However, by virtue of
the interim order dt.05.10.2020, he was permitted to participate in the
Pole Climbing Test and he was successful therein. Learned counsel for
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
the petitioners submitted that there was no vacancy available in
Mahabubnagar Distrisct.
69. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of reservation to local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen. Since the petitioners in these cases have been successful in the
Pole Climbing Test, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners against the unfilled
vacancies of 2019 Notification available in JLM 2023 Notification
against their respective categories in the order of their merit.
70. W.P.No.17377 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of. No order as to
costs.
71. Having regard to the fact that the Notification No.03/2022
dt.09.05.2022 issued for direct recruitment of 1000 vacancies of Junior
Linemen in TSSPDCL has been cancelled by the TSSPDCL vide letter
No.79-A1/2021 dt.25.08.2022 and the amended prayer in
W.P.No.25062 of 2022 has become infructuous and it is accordingly
dismissed, the amended prayer in W.P.No.17324 of 2020 only in respect
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
of challenge to the Notification No.03 of 2022 dt.09.05.2022 is also
dismissed as infructuous. The rest of the prayer in W.P.No.17324 of
2020 is sustained. Accordingly, W.P.No.17324 of 2020 is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
In this case, the petitioner had applied for Nalgonda District under
95% quota, whereas he was found to have studied in Yadadri District
and the place of his study fell within old Nalgonda District. Since he
was not within zone of selection under 5% quota vacancy in Nalgonda
District, he was not considered. By virtue of interim order dt.06.10.2020
of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to appear for Pole Climbing
Test and he was successful therein. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondents that there are no vacancies in Nalgonda
District.
73. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of reservation to local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen. Since the petitioner herein has been successful in the Pole
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Climbing Test, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioner against the vacancy available in
Nalgonda District in BC-E category in JLM 2023 Notification in the
order his merit. W.P.No.17409 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of. No
order as to costs.
In this case, the petitioner claims to be belonging to Narayanpet
District, i.e., new Narayanpet District carved out from earlier
Mahabubnagar District. It is submitted that the petitioner had chosen
Narayanpet as his local District though he belongs to Mahabubnagar
local District as per his study certificates and as per earlier Presidential
Order and the petitioner has chosen Mahabubnagar Circle/District as his
preference for 5% open quota posts, but the faulty software provided by
the respondents has considered his claim only against 5% open posts
making his local District claim as redundant and therefore, the petitioner
made a representation on 04.06.2020 to respondents 1 and 2 while
enclosing bonafide certificates and requested them to change his local
Circle as Narayanpet, but there was no response from respondents 1 and
2. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
had applied against 5% quota and since he was not in the zone of
selection under 5% quota vacancies, he was not considered. By virtue of
interim order dt.06.10.2020 of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to
appear for Pole Climbing Test and he was successful therein.
75. In view of the direction of this Court that the Presidential Order
will not apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents
cannot apply the rule of reservation to local candidates to the posts of
Junior Linemen, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioner against the vacancy available in BC-B category in JLM 2023
Notification in the order of his merit. W.P.No.17428 of 2020 is
accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
In this case, the petitioner had applied for Nalgonda District under
95% quota, whereas he was found to have studied in Yadadri District
and the place of his study fell within old Nalgonda District. Since he
was not within zone of selection under 5% quota vacancy in Nalgonda
District, he was not considered. By virtue of interim order dt.06.10.2020
of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to appear for Pole Climbing
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Test and he was successful therein. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondents that there are no vacancies in Nalgonda
District.
77. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of reservation to local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen. Since the petitioner herein has been successful in the Pole
Climbing Test, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioner against the vacancy available in SC
category in JLM 2023 Notification in the order of his merit.
W.P.No.17478 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
The petitioner herein had applied for Mahabubnagar District
under 95% quota, but on the ground that he had studied Classes 1 to 4 in
Vikarabad District, his case was considered against 5% quota in
Mahabubnagar District. By virtue of interim order dt.06.10.2020 of this
Court, the petitioner was permitted to appear for Pole Climbing Test and
he was successful therein.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
79. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of reservation to local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen. Since the petitioner was successful in the Pole Climbing Test,
he shall be considered against the vacancy available in SC category in
2019 Notification which is available under Mahabubnagar District now
notified as carry forward vacancy in JLM 2023 Notification, in the order
of his merit. W.P.No.17520 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of. No
order as to costs.
The petitioner herein had applied for Mahabubnagar District
under 95% quota, but on the ground that he had studied Classes 1 to 4 in
Vikarabad District, his case was considered against 5% quota in
Mahabubnagar District. By virtue of interim order dt.07.10.2020 of this
Court, the petitioner was permitted to appear for Pole Climbing Test and
he was successful therein.
81. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
the rule of reservation to local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen. Since the petitioner was successful in the Pole Climbing Test,
he shall be considered against the vacancy available in BC-B category
which was available under Mahabubnagar District in 2019Notifiscation
and now notified as carry forward vacancy in JLM 2023 Notification, in
the order of his merit. W.P.No.17604 of 2020 is accordingly disposed
of. No order as to costs.
82. W.P.Nos.17790, 17817, 18048 of 2020
The petitioner in W.P.No.17790 of 2020 claims to be local of
Siddipet and he studied in the erstwhile Karimnagar District, but he had
applied for Siddipet Circle under SC category. The respondents have
considered him under 5% quota in Siddipet Circle as his place of study
falls in new Karimnagar District. By virtue of interim order
dt.13.10.2020 of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to appear for
Pole Climbing Test and he was successful therein. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was not in the
zone of selection as he secured less marks than the last candidate
selected under 5% quota.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
83. In the case of W.P.No.17817 of 2020, petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5
claim to have studied in Jogulamba Gadwal District, Narayanpet
District, Nagarkurnool District and Wanaparthy District respectively,
which Districts fall in erstwhile Mahabubnagar District; Petitioner No.4
claims to have studied in Nalgonda District and his candidature falls
under Nalgonda Circle; and according to petitioner No.6, he studied in
Siddipet District which falls under erstwhile Karimnagar District. They
all applied for 95% quota posts against their respective Districts, but the
respondents have considered their cases under 5% quota. By virtue of
interim order dt.08.10.2020 of this Court, the petitioners were permitted
to appear for Pole Climbing Test and they were successful therein. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners
were not in the zone of selection under 5% quota vacancies in the
Districts/Circles to which they applied.
84. The petitioner in W.P.No.18048 of 2020 had applied for Suryapet
District under 95% quota, but as per his study certificates, he studied
Classes 1 to 7 in Khammam District and therefore, he was found to be
eligible to be considered under 5% quota in Khammam District. Since
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
he was not coming within the zone of selection under BC-D cartegory,
he was not permitted. However, by virtue of the interim order
dt.12.10.2020, he was permitted to participate in the Pole Climbing Test
and he was successful therein. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the respondents that the petitioner was not in the zone of selection as he
secured less marks than the last candidate selected under 5% quota.
85. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of reservation to local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen. Since the petitioners in these cases have been successful in the
Pole Climbing Test, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners against the vacancies
available in JLM 2019 Notification which have been carried forward in
JLM 2023 Notification against their respective categories, in the order
of their merit. W.P.Nos.17790, 17817 and 18048 of 2020 are
accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
The petitioner No.1 herein applied for Nalgonda Circle under
95% quota, but he was found to have studied Classes 1 to 7 in Suryapet
District and petitioner No.2 studied Classes 1 to 7 in Nagarkurnool
District and petitioner No.3 studied Classes 1 to 7 in Ranga Reddy
District, but they applied for Mahabubnagar District under 95% quota.
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 belong to SC community and petitioner No.3
belongs to ST community.
87. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no
vacancy in Nalgonda District and one SC vacancy and one ST vacancy
in Mahabubnagar District under 95% quota are now notified as carry
forward vacancies in JLM 2023 Notification.
88. Since the petitioners have been found successful in the Pole
Climbing Test and in view of the finding of this Court that the
Presidential Order will not apply to the present batch of cases and that
the respondents cannot apply the rule of reservation to local candidates
to the posts of Junior Linemen, the respondents are directed to consider
the case of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein against the vacancies of 2019
Notification carried forward to JLM 2023 Notification, in the order of
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
their merit. W.P.No.18051 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of. No order
as to costs.
In this case, the petitioner had applied for Mahabubnagar District
under 95% quota, whereas he was found to have studied Classes 1 to 7
in Narayanpet District and the place of his study fell within old
Mahabubnagar District. Since he was not within zone of selection under
5% quota vacancy in Mahabubnagar District, he was not considered. By
virtue of interim order dt.13.10.2020 of this Court, the petitioner was
permitted to appear for Pole Climbing Test and he was successful
therein. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that
there are no vacancies in Mahabubnagar District.
90. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of reservation to local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen. Since the petitioner herein has been successful in the Pole
Climbing Test, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioner against the vacancy available in
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Mahabubnagar District in BC-D category in JLM 2019 Notification, in
the order of his merit. W.P.No.18104 of 2020 is accordingly disposed
of. No order as to costs.
91. W.P.Nos.18201 and 18296 of 2020
The petitioner in W.P.No.18201 of 2020 claims to be local of
Suryapet and he studied in Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, but he had
applied for Suryapet Circle under BC-E category. The respondents have
considered him under 5% quota in Suryapet Circle. By virtue of interim
order dt.19.10.2020 of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to appear
for Pole Climbing Test and he was successful therein. It is submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was not in the
zone of selection as he secured less marks than the last candidate
selected under 5% quota.
92. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.18296 of 2020 belong to SC
community. Petitioner No.1 applied for Medchal-Malkjgiri District, but
claims to have studied in Jangoan District; petitioner Nos.2 and 3
applied for Hyderabad District, but claim to have studied in Khammam
and Suryapet Districts respectively. They all applied for 95% quota
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
posts against their respective Districts, but the respondents have
considered their cases under 5% quota. By virtue of interim order
dt.19.10.2020 of this Court, the petitioners were permitted to appear for
Pole Climbing Test and they were successful therein. It is submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were not in
the zone of selection under 5% quota vacancies in the Districts/Circles
to which they applied.
93. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of reservation to local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen. Since the petitioners in these cases have been successful in the
Pole Climbing Test, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners against the vacancies
available in JLM 2019 Notification which have been carried forward in
JLM 2023 Notification against their respective categories, in the order
of their merit. W.P.Nos.18201 and 18296 of 2020 are accordingly
disposed of. No order as to costs.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
94. W.P.Nos.18730, 19079, 21073 and 21557 of 2020
In W.P.No.18730 of 2020, petitioner No.1 claims to be local of
Vikarabad District and he studied in the erstwhile Ranga Reddy District,
but he had applied for Sangareddy District under BC-D category. The
respondents have considered him under 5% quota in Sangareddy
District. Petitioner No.2 claims to have studied in Medak District and
had applied for Medak District under ST category. The respondents
have considered him under 5% quota in Medak District. Petitioner No.3
claims to have studied in Achampet which falls in erstwhile
Mahabubnagar District and presently in Nagarkurnool District. He
applied for Nagarkurnool District under BC-A category. By virtue of
interim order dt.21.10.2020 of this Court, the petitioners were permitted
to appear for Pole Climbing Test and they were successful therein. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners
were not in the zone of selection as they secured less marks than the last
candidates selected under 5% quota in the respective Districts.
95. In the case of W.P.No.19079 of 2020, the petitioner claims to
have studied Classes 2 and 3 in Nagarkurnool, Classes 4 to 6 in
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Telkapally Village in the erstwhile Mahabubnagar District. He applied
for Nagarkurnool District under 95% quota, but the respondents have
considered his case under 5% quota. By virtue of interim order
dt.02.11.2020 of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to appear for
Pole Climbing Test and he was successful therein. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was not in the
zone of selection as he secured less marks than the last candidate
selected under 5% quota.
96. The petitioner in W.P.No.21073 of 2020 had applied for
Nagarkurnool District under 95% quota in BC-B category, but as per his
study certificates, he studied Classes 1 to 6 in Nalgonda District and
therefore, he was found to be eligible to be considered under 5% quota
in Nagarkurnool District. Later he was permitted to participate in the
Pole Climbing Test and he was successful therein. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was not in the
zone of selection as he secured less marks than the last candidate
selected under 5% quota.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
97. The petitioner in W.P.No.21557 of 2020 had applied for
Medchal-Malkajgiri District under 95% quota in BC-B category, but as
per his study certificates, he studied Classes 1 to 7 in erstwhile
Karimnagar District and therefore, he was found to be eligible to be
considered under 5% quota in Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Later he was
permitted to participate in the Pole Climbing Test and he was successful
therein. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that
the petitioner was not in the zone of selection as he secured less marks
than the last candidate selected under 5% quota.
98. This Court has already held that the Presidential Order will not
apply to the present batch of cases and that the respondents cannot apply
the rule of reservation to local candidates to the posts of Junior
Linemen. Since the petitioners in these cases have been successful in the
Pole Climbing Test, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners against the vacancies
available in JLM 2019 Notification which have been carried forward in
JLM 2023 Notification against their respective categories, in the order
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
of their merit. W.P.Nos.18730, 19079, 21073 and 21557 of 2020 are
accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
99. W.P.Nos.18452 and 23048 of 2020
In these matters, the petitioners were eligible and have
participated in the written examination conducted on 15.12.2019
pursuant to the Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019. The petitioners
were called for certificates verification and Pole Climbing Test.
However, the petitioners in W.P.No.23048 of 2020 could submit the
latest Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, SSC Memo, Residence Certificate
and Duplicate SSC Memo and the petitioners in W.P.No.18452 of 2020
could not submit the latest original bonafide certificates/residence
certificates. Therefore, the petitioners were not permitted to participate
in the Pole Climbing Test. The petitioners submitted that due to Covid-
19 lockdown restrictions and Unlock 4.0 restrictions and non-opening of
the schools/colleges, the petitioners could not obtain the necessary
certificates and the respondents have not permitted the petitioners to
Pole Climbing Test. It is submitted that the petitioners in W.P.No.23048
of 2020 have made representations on 18.09.2020, 17.09.2020,
03.09.2020 and 22.10.2020 respectively after obtaining the necessary
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
certificates for consideration and the petitioners in W.P.No.18452 of
2020 claims to have approached respondents 3 to 7 and requested them
to permit them to the Pole Climbing Test along with others, but they
were not permitted to do so and they were advised that if they obtain
orders from the Hon'ble High Court, they will be permitted to the Pole
Climbing Test and therefore, the petitioners in both the cases have come
before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dt.08.03.2021 in the Suo Motu
Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3 of 2020, to the effect that period of
limitation in all proceedings shall stand extended from 15.03.2020 till
14.03.2021.
100. The respondents have filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.18542 of
2020 and no counter affidavit is filed in W.P.No.23048 of 2020.
101. Since the petitioners in these Writ Petitions could not obtain and
furnish the certificates before the due date and it is stated by the learned
counsel for the respondents that there are vacancies which have not been
filled so far, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.23048 and 18452 of 2020 for verification of their
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
certificates in view of the relaxations given by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the above mentioned Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of
2020, dt.08.03.2021 and if the respondents are inclined to verify the
certificates and find the certificates to be in order, then the respondents
will permit the petitioners in W.P.Nos.23048 and 18452 of 2020 to Pole
Climbing Test and thereafter consider appointing them as Junior
Linemen in the order of their merit, provided there are vacancies in their
category. W.P.Nos.23048 and 18452 of 2020 are disposed of
accordingly. No order as to costs.
102. W.P.Nos.17112 and 22548 of 2020
In W.P.No.17112 of 2020, the petitioners are seeking a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not permitting
petitioners 1 and 2 to the Pole Climbing Test on the ground that the
petitioners studied ITI in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the action of
respondents 1 and 2 in not issuing any orders/instructions to respondent
No.3 for conducting the Pole Climbing Test to the petitioners for Junior
Lineman posts pursuant to their representations dt.03.09.2020, as illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India and Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
and contrary to the educational qualifications clause mentioned in
Paragraph-3 of the Notification No.1/2019, dt.28.09.2019 and
consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioners to
the Pole Climbing Test for Junior Lineman posts on par with all other
candidates who were issued ITI certificates by respondent No.4 in
Telangana State and accordingly appoint them.
103. In W.P.No.22548 of 2020, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not including
the petitioner's name in the provisional selection list of Junior Linemen
even after verification of his original certificates only on the ground that
the petitioner studied ITI in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as illegal and
arbitrary and violative of Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Re-
organisation Act, 2014 and also contrary to the educational
qualifications clause mentioned in paragraph-3 of the Notification
No.1/2019 dt.28.09.2019 and consequently to direct respondents 1 to 3
to issue appointment orders to the petitioner as Junior Lineman on par
with all other candidates who were issued ITI certificates by respondent
No.4 in Telangana State and accordingly appoint him.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
104. Brief facts are that the petitioner in W.P.No.22548 of 2020 has
participated in the selection process for the post of Junior Lineman
pursuant to Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019. He has qualified in
the examination and he was also called for verification of original
certificates, but he was not considered on the ground that he studied ITI
in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners in W.P.No.17112 of
2020 have not been called for Pole Climbing Test on the ground that
they studied ITI in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner No.1 in
W.P.No.17112 of 2020 has studied ITI in Krishnaveni ITI, Saraswathi
Nagar, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh during 2015-17 while
petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.17112 of 2020 has studied ITI through
Shabhari Sari Private ITI, Veldurthy, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh
during 2017-19. The petitioner in W.P.No.22548 of 2020 has studied
ITI through Jaya Industrial Training Centre, Maddipadu,
Sitharamapuram Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District,
Andhra Pradesh.
105. It is submitted that the certificates issued in favour of the
petitioners are National Trade Certificates which are on par with other
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
ITI candidates who studied in Telangana State and were issued ITI
certificates. It is stated that the National Trade Certificates issued by
respondent No.4 are valid throughout India without reference to the
place/State in which the candidates have studied as all ITI colleges,
private/Government/aided, etc., have to be affiliated to respondent No.4
Council and it would issue National Trade Certificates after conducting
All India Trade Test examinations. It is submitted that vocational
training is in Concurrent List under Schedule VII of the Constitution of
India and the Central Government is entrusted with responsibility of
formulation of policy, laying down training standards, norms, conduct
of examinations and certification and affiliation/de-affiliation of ITIs
etc., and for achieving the said objectives, respondent No.4 Council was
set up by the Government of India in the year 1956 to function as a
Central Agency to advise the Government of India in framing the
training policy and coordinating vocational training implemented
through ITIs and therefore, the certificates are awarded by respondent
No.4 Council and there is no difference as to whether the training has
been given in the State of Telangana or in the State of Andhra Pradesh
or any other State and that the certificates are valid throughout India and
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that they should be considered
for appointment.
106. The respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.No.17112 of 2020 have filed
counter affidavit stating that the petitioners in W.P.No.17112 of 2020
have completed their ITI training course in the State of Andhra Pradesh
and have secured certificates from the State of Andhra Pradesh and
therefore, they are not eligible to be considered in the State of
Telangana. Further, it is submitted that the ITI certificate in respect of
petitioner No.2 was issued on 06.11.2019 and therefore, he did not
acquire the requisite educational qualification as on the date of the
Notification, i.e., 28.09.2019 and therefore, on this ground also, he is not
eligible for consideration.
107. Having regard to the rival contentions, this Court finds that Para 3
of Notification No.01/2019 dt.28.09.2019 refers to the educational
qualifications as under:
"3. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:
The applicants must possess the qualifications from a recognized
Institution/BOARD as detailed below or equivalent thereto, as on the date of
Notification.
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
Name of Educational Qualification
the Post
Must possess SSLC/SSC/10th Class with I.T.I. qualification in
Electrical Trade/Wireman or 2 years Intermediate
Vocational course in Electrical Trade only from a
recognized Institution/Board of combined A.P/Telangana
State Education Department as on the date of notification.
Junior
Lineman NOTE: If there is any deviation from the above qualification
for the above post, the candidates shall produce the
equivalency certificate from the authority issuing the
qualification certificate viz Secretary of the Institute/Board
for accepting his application.
From a reading of the above prescription, it does not appear that the ITI
certificates have to be issued only by a recognized Institution in the
State of Telangana. In fact, it also provides that the certificate can be
from a recognized Institution/Board of combined A.P/Telangana State
Education Department. In W.P.No.17112 of 2020, Petitioner No.1 has
obtained the certificate in August, 2015, while petitioner No.2 has
secured the certificate in the year 2019 and both the certificates are not
from the combined Board of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, but are
from the Board of State of Andhra Pradesh alone. Therefore, they do not
satisfy the prescribed condition. The petitioners are also challenging
non-consideration of their certificates issued by Government recognized
Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that the said
certificates are issued nationwide and therefore, they relate to National
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
recognised Institutions and not limited to the State of Andhra Pradesh
and Telangana and also that the said action on the part of the
respondents is in violation of Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, 2014. For the sake of ready reference, Section 95 of
the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 is reproduced hereunder:
"95. In order to ensure equal opportunities for quality higher
education to all students in the successor States, the existing
admission quotas in all government or private, aided or unaided,
institutions of higher, technical and medical education in so far as it is
provided under article 371D of the Constitution, shall continue as
such for a period of ten years during which the existing common
admission process shall continue."
From a literal reading of the said Section, it appears that this is only for
the purpose of admission into Educational Institutions imparting higher
education and not in relation to the completion of studies and being
considered for appointments in other States. When the Notification
clearly mentions that the qualification should be from a recognized
Institution/Board of Combined A.P./Telangana State Education
Department as on the date of the Notification and since the certificates
are not from the combined State of Andhra Pradesh but are from the
residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, the same are not valid educational
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
qualification as per the Notification. The petitioners have not challenged
the Notification but are seeking consideration of their cases in terms of
the Notification. In view of the same, there is no merit in
W.P.Nos.17112 and 22548 of 2020 and they are accordingly dismissed.
108. In the result,
(i) W.P.Nos.15597, 15864, 15888, 16775, 16781, 16883,
17377, 17409, 17428, 17478, 17520, 17604, 17790, 17817,
18048, 18051, 18104, 18201, 18296, 18452, 18730, 19079,
21073, 21557 and 23048 of 2020 are disposed as discussed
above;
(ii) W.P.No.16598 of 2020 is disposed of in respect of
petitioner Nos.2 and 4 only; and in respect of petitioner
Nos.1 and 3, W.P.No.16598 of 2020 is closed as
infructuous vide orders dt.28.06.2023;
(iii) W.P.No.16682 of 2020 is disposed of in respect of
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and it is dismissed in respect of
petitioner No.3;
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
(iv) W.P.Nos.17112 and 22548 of 2020 are dismissed as
discussed above;
(v) W.P.No.25062 of 2022 is dismissed as infructuous as
discussed above;
(vi) I.A.No.1 of 2023 in 2023 in W.P.No.17324 of 2020 is
allowed and the Registry is directed to amend the prayer
accordingly;
(vii) The amended prayer in W.P.No.17324 of 2020 in respect of
challenge to the Notification No.03 of 2022 dt.09.05.2022
only is dismissed as infructuous and the rest of the prayer
in W.P.No.17324 of 2020 is sustained. Accordingly,
W.P.No.17324 of 2020 is disposed of as discussed above;
(viii) No order as to costs in all these Writ Petitions.
109. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions
including I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.15864 of 2020, I.A.No.2 of 2020
in W.P.No.16598 of 2020, I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.16682 of 2020,
I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.16775 of 2020, I.A.No.2 of 2020 in
& batch (Total 31 Cases)
W.P.No.17377 of 2020, I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.17409 of 2020,
I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.17478 of 2020, I.A.No.2 of 2020 in
W.P.No.17520 of 2020, I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.18051 of 2020,
I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.18452 of 2020, I.A.No.1 of 2021 in
W.P.No.17790 of 2020 and I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.18296 of 2020
shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: .02.2024
Note: Issue C.C. in one week.
B/o Svv
