The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri D'sudharshan' learned counsel appearlng on behalf of the petitioners and Sri G'Vidya Sagar' learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Smt' K'Udaya Sri' learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents' 2 T e s r h c k h DT av r as un er: "...to issue an appropriate Writ' Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Junior Linenibn with benefits incidental and ancillary theretoontheanalogyoforderspassedinW.P.No.23688 of 2019 dated 01-10-2020 and on par with individuals who were appointed as such pursuant to notifications dated 0B- 06-2006 and 20-10-2006 respectively in the interest of justice duly holding the action of the Respondents in denying appointment to the Petitioners as lunior Linemen by keeping the matter pending without any valid or legal justification aS being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and in violation of Articles f+ anO 16 of the Constitution of lndia and to Pass'" 2 *.r. *o.r,Ur_ri),

3. Ihe r:ase of the petitioners, in brief, is theit * e petitioners had a,:plierl for the posts of Contract Junjor Linenren (CJLM) pursuant h) notifications dated 08.06.2006 zrntJ .10.10.2006 issued b.l r:l,e Respondent No.4. The petitioners; s.rccessfully complete(i tit(: selection process, including ther pole_c irnbing test and int€rrviev/ held in February 2073, andsubmitted certificates;, For v,y6166 acknowledgments were issue C, Despite being inl,ornrr:cl that the petitioners, names were irclu C ed in the selection li:;t, a ppointment orders were not issued c ue ; o pending litigation. Fol|l\rying the Hon,ble Supreme Court,s f nal judgment on 25.02.2011) resolving the dispute, the petitioners :;ubmitted represent,ltionr; seeking appointment, however. the s tid claim had been de,n ie:cl by the respondents. Aggrieved by the arbitrary the petitioners filed the prel,;ent writ action of ther .r-.:;pondents, ttre ir original petition. P RU D HE ,RE c RD: A) The re respondent No=4 d n f h P IVlD.No.613ly'_ Detition er he.rc I :3 d o r s lJ the M e2/B- _ the ,1 3 SN,J w.P.N0.9069 2022

1. Adverting to the references cited above, Sri. K. Komaraiah S/o. Beeraiah is directed to appear before the selection committee on 72-02-2013 at 9.00 AM hrs. O/o. the Superintending Engineer/Operation Circle/Medak at Sangareddy along with the original certificates i.e., SSC/SSLC Certificate, Date of Bifth, ITI Certificate or Intermediate Vocational Course in Electrical Trade, Wiremen Trade, Caste Certificate, Residence Proof Certificate.

2. He is also informed that no T.A. and D.A. will be paid to him for appearing for the above mentioned interview.

3. The pole climbing test will be conducted on 12.O2.2OL3. He should climb the pole up to the top of the pole. Otherwise the incumbent is not eligible for selection. B) The counter affidavit ha been filed on behalf of the resDondents and in particular, paraqraph Nos.1 I to L4.2 are extr cted hereunder: "11. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 25-2-2019 in SLP(C) No. 15001-15110 of 2013 (re-numbered as Civil Appeal No. 2009-2158 of 2019) set aside the orders of the Division Bench dated l4-3-20L2 in W.P. No. 8794 of 2OO7 and batch and upheld the orders of the earlier Hon'ble Division Bench dated 10-11-2009 in W.A. No. 4 SN,J W P. ',10.9069 2022 1434 of 2008 and batch. It was alsc rer:c rded that t 1e appointments were made over and a bove the posts notified in the year 2006 and further observed that the Hon,ble Division Bench by o, Ou. OutuO '.1 1.3-20t2 in W.p. No. 8794 of 20iB rrrd batch c:()rnmitted serious error in directing :o r 3..examine the selections already made in the year 2015. It was al:;o recorded that eve wrr<, were appried,", J""j"::'lJllii;.'l;ff::?; th,l year 2006 and were efFected by condition of 6 (iv) (c) of the revised notification, I rould be corr:;idered For appointment. lrl In view of the orders oF the Hon,ble Supreme rlcrrrrt dated 25-2-20rg, review.f serections as uncle,rtaken in implementation of the orcle -s; dated 14-3-20L2 of this Hon,ble Court in \il.p. No. {t794 of 20C7 and batch was abandoned. The Wr t p( t tioners herr:in who were issued with call lette - dated 7-2t-2013 in implementation of the order; dated 74-:l-2012 would not be eligible for consider;rtion For al)p()iltment as Junior Linemen in pursuancc of the N,rtit'i<:ation of 2006, as the orders in W.tr. N ). 8794 ot 2OQ7 and batch were set aside. Thus, ther€ itre no meri :s in the Writ petition and the same is lable to be disrnissed.

13. In reply to averments made in pare \o. 2 of the: Writ petition, it is submitted that the rlljef as sougl t for in the Writ petition is misconceivr d and a 5 5N,J W.P.No.9069 2022 untenable. The Writ Petitioner is seeking for relief on the basis of the orders passed in W'P' No'23688 of 2}lg, dated L-lo-2020. In this regard, it is submitted that against the orders dated 1-10-2020 in W.P. No. 23688 of 2019, the TSSPDCL had filed W'A' No. 45 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by order dated 28-4-2022 held that the orders dated 1-10-2020 in W.P. No. 23688 of 2019 are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 15001-15110 of 2013' dated 25-2-2019 and accordingly allowed the writ Appeal. SLP (C) No. 9906 of 2022 filed again5t the orders dated 28-4-2022 in W.A. No' 45 of 2022 was also dismissed by order dated 02-06-2022' Thus' no relief can be sou oht for bv the Writ Petiti oner on the the orders passed in W.P. No. 23688 of basis o f

14. In reply to averments made in Para Nos' 3 to 18, it is submitted that as stated above, the Writ Petitioner was issued with call letters dated l-2-2O13 only in the process of implementation of the orders of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W'P' No' 8794 of 2oo7 and batch, dated t4-3-2012' However' in view of the interim orders granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No' 15001-15110 of 2013' daled L6-4-2013, review of the selections made in the year 2006 was stalled. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 25-2-2OL9, set aside the orders daled 14-3-2012 in W'P' No' 8794 of 2oO7 \ 6 s N,./ V P.No.9069 2022 and batch. Thus, the entire review cf tte selections rnade in the year 2006 were aba rrloned and c:onsequenfly consideration of case tf t.te petitioner fcr appointment as Junior Linemen agairrst the posts rotified in the Notification 2006 would al;<l not arise, as the case of the petitioner was srrbje:ted to pole Climbing Test only in pursuance of the orders dated 14-3-2072 which was subsequenily :;et. rrside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

14.1 It is submitted that W.p No. 23699 olF 2r119 was filed seeking appointment i1 terms of lause 6 (iv) (d) of the revised Nc,tificar:ion dated ,2()-10-2006 for the post of Junior Linemr n. The said rA/rit Petition was disposed of with ce rtai I directions try the learned single Judge by or der dated '-.70.2020. Aggrieved by the sa id c rrlers, the ]'S;SPDCL filed W.A. No. 45 of 2022 and the Division Eiernch of this Hon,ble Court allowed the r1/rit Appeal by order dated 2B-4-2022 and set asioe tie orders in V/.P. No. 23688 of 2019 dated 1_10_2020, SLp (C) No. 9906 of 2022 filed challengincl thr: ,)rl3rs dated ,28-4-2022 in W.A. No. 45 of 2022 q6s alsc rlismissed or 02-06-2022. Thus, the Writ petitiorrrrr herein cirnnot claim any beneFit on the basis oF le orders p,:s;sed in W.p. No.23688 of 20L9.

14.2. lt is submitted that the averrrt:nts that appointm lnt is a under Art c e 16 of rirlht to be considered for FL rdamental Right guaranteed / _.t 7 SN,J W-P.No.9069-2022 Constitution of India is misconceived and untenable' n id red h o r P r t r n o w ver he Wri o R f P iti ner wa n ti n nd wa t n s o t r tn he ol me e t o e u e z a n t Ho 'b h a h o e t L n e h P ti -2-20 heW r r u t s

2005." h n s m I ewa o e o r c m n P.N 8 -3- o 4 2.H e I h t20 7 lfw s J b e id b u h rs o n f e t t vo r a o ntme

4. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalfof.therespondents,placingrelianceonthe averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, particularly in paragraph Nos' 11 to L4'2 (referred to and extracted above)' contends that the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted' as the petitioners have relied upon the order dated 01'10'2020 passed an W.P. No. 23688 ol 2Ot9' which had been held to 8 sN,j W.P.No.9O69_2022 I \] \ be contrary to taw by the Division Bench in its judgment date,c 118.04.2O22 passed in w.A. No. 45 ot ,2ll22.The judgrnent had been uphetd by the Hon,ble Srupreme Court in s.L.p, (c) Nos. 15001_15110 0f 2013 dated 25.02.2019. There,fore, the writ petition is tiable to be disrnissed. 5. t.ea r 1ed counsel appearing on behalF oF he petitioners spec fir:ally contends that the petitioners atten d3d the pole climting test in the year 2013 and completed the lrole climbing test and the petitioners, names were also inc lLrded in the selectiol /ist and therefore, the petitione,rs, r_equest for Contract Jun ior Linem€n in prg15 litnce of the committee should be conducted by selection appointrne r : as intervievvs consid 3 r,3d, J hisl urt

6. for the re[i fa DTayed for tn s view ol e a affidavi_L extracteslaUeye! L<rt entiUed resent wttt De itio ni n _!x e coun f t r to and 7, Learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioners s;urbmits that writ petition could be dirsposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consirJr:r the t ( 9 SN,J W.P.No.9069 2022 representations of the petitioners dated L7 'LL'2O2O seeking appointment of the petitioners as Contract Junior Linemen within a reasonabte period' Learned Senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. TAKING INTO CoNSIDE 8 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' TIO N: b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Senior Designated counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, I I I c) The proceedings of the respondent No'4 vide Lr.No.SE/ OP N t MDK I PO I ADM I C2 I B-IV/ D'No' 6 1 3sl 13 dated O1.O2.2O13 issued to the petitioners herein and' d) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in particular, paragraph Nos'11 to L4'2' The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representations of the 10 - \ wo"'ogoog-zi]l 7'2o2o seeking appr)intment dated 17 r r ra-- petitioners petitioners ." arart: : app.opriate orders ,^ -:t"**ct of fo,ur (4) weeks ,r,'n order and orr, .on' repre!;ertations ""tototnce to Law the date or ru..;pt 'tmunicate *'" outi"i Junior Linemen of the and pass vrithin a period of ar coPY of this to , shar/ be,,o order r",:.::::,"..'" n"*rl ilJ:r# M is,: -.;16 6 uor, applica tions, if anY, closeo PenrJing 5ft611 stand //rRuE copytt t tr, ii$tj.:,,^F#BBffiR -r/ ffififfI gl*gr 1 2 3 4

5. 6. PSK. b HIGH COURT' CC TODAY DATED:10 tO6t2O2S ORDER WP.No.9069 ot ,,2022 l I z .(, -, ( oRTI-E i; \ '), .J T (:') 2 0 i"rrl Lt1) ,.+ :... - ,j, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS cg40 $*.-- 6t"V