M. Rama Rao v. The Chairman and Managing Director, A.P TRANSCO, Vidyut
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.15703 of 2000 ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner is aggrieved by the promotion of the 3rd respondent as Chief Engineer, TPC (Mechanical). He asserts that the post is exclusively earmarked to be filled up from amongst Superintending Engineers (Mechanical) in terms of the Board’s proceedings dated 03-05-1995. Neither the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board nor the AP TRANSCO or the AP GENCO which are the persona juris, under whom the petitioner assumedly claims employment and promotional avenues, have been impleaded as a party. Instead the petitioner is rest content with impleading the Chairman and Managing Director, AP TRANSCO; the Chairman and Managing Director, AP GENCO and the 3rd respondent as the only respondents. Since the employer who is a juristic person has not been impleaded as such, no relief could be claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 02-12-2010 GODA RAGHURAM, J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 02 Dec 2010. The bench was GODA RAGHURAM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.