The High Court · 2025

Pstition pn-dp1 Arligle -2?6 Et the Qg4qlitutien ef lndi4 praying that in the circumstanq-eg stafgd i4 the affiC?vit filed therqwith, the High Court rnay be pleased to iggue an apBlopriqte Writ, Ordgr or Direction mole partictllarly one in lhe nature 9f Writ gf M3lCamys by declaring the action of the Respondentq in cancelllpg Pgtitioners apppintment ta the pgst of Junior Assistant-cum-Cgmpqter Operatgr vide impugned Memo No. SE/OPiMBNR/PO/JAO/Adm' SA1/D,flo 1f{12021 daleQ 27-01-2022 issued by the 4th Respondent on thq directioqs iqsuq{ by the Znd Respondent vide Memo. Np. CG M (H B D)l9M(Pef , )/AS (Per and Ser)/PO-H/80-H1 I 2021 dated 24'0 1 -2022 tnal toQ, after the Petitioner had started discharging duties in the said post and issuing revised orders appointing the Petitioner to the post of Office Sub ordinate vide Memo No. SE/ OF,/MBNR/Po/JAo/Adm SAI/D.No.1 59i2022 dat,zd 27 -01-2022 without affording any opportunity or issuing notice, as being arbitrary, illegal, opposed to the prinr:iples of natural justice and in violation of Articlt-'s 14 and 16 of the constitution of India an( set;Eg!fle !h9. saqe gQqgrdingly Iand further bq pleased to d'eclaig that the Petitioner is entitled tq !"rold the post of Jupior {ssistan!cum--computer opgratgl in aqqSrdeoce pith the qualificatiqns possesged by frim yrith all attendant benefitS in the interept of iustice' IANO:1OF2022 petitioh under Seqtion 151 qBg preYllgtha! in llle cileumstQnges Ctated i0 the affidavil filgd ip suppgrt 9f thi Pgtitien, .the Bigh qgu4 rnav he pleased to diregt the Bgspol,lents lo 0gntinue the Fqtitioner as Junior Assistant-cum- Compulgr Qpqratqr !uly guspgnding lhe qpqrAtion of imBugled lVlemo No CGM (HBD)IGM(Fsr.)/A$(Per errd Silr)/PQ-tl tlo?fl1t2021 dqlgQ 2a:Q1-2!-22. and Me-mq Nq. s-e/gprMqNR/ Po/JA9/A4m Q4:trP Nq,1.o-7tzp.?2 qated 27-01 zQ22issued hv the 2nd and 4th Respondents lespgotively, ,.. ',. .i 1: qcunst!for lh? Petllioqe{ : l[s.c.JYQISN{l PEVI: rep.,9Rl 9.SUPHARS}IAN gounsglfor lhe Respo4dents No.lSli GP FqR 9iERVl$FS ly Cosnsel for the Respondents No.|&4 ; SIUT,K.UDAY4 FRl, sc FgR TSSPDCI.,. The Cgurt rnlfle the following: ORPEF o d HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o.ll547 of2022t OR ER: Heard Ms. C. Jyotsna Devi, learned counset represented by Sri D. Sudharshan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Iv, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri G, Vidyasagar, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counset for Southern power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Oider or Direction more particuldrly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents in cancelling petitioner's appointment to the post of lunior Assistant- cum-Computer Operator vide impugned Memo No. SE/Opl MBNR/POIJAO/Adm-SA1/D.No.757/2022, dated 27-Ot- 2022 issued by the 4th Respondent on the directions issued by the 2nd Respondent vide Memo No. CGM(HRD)/GM(per) /AS (Per & Ser,rPO-Hl8O-H7/2O21, dated 24-01-2022 that too, after the Petitioner had started discharging duties in 2 SN, J wr 1t547 2022 the said post and issuing revised orders appointing the Petitioner to the post of Office Sub ordinate vide Memo No SE/OP/MBNR/PO/IAO/Adm-SA1/D No.159/2022 dated 27- O7-2O22 without affording any opportunity or i:;suing notice, as being arbitrary illegal opposed to the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Corstitution of India and set aside the same accordingly and further be pleased to declare thert the petitioner is entitled to hold the post of Junior Assistant- cum-Computer Operator in accordance with the qualirications possessed by him with all attendant bernefits in the interest ofjustice and to pass...".

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the father of the petitioner had retired as i.A.O from service on medical invalidation and on the application submitted by the petitioner's father, the znd respondent accorded approval for the appointment of petitioner's son, to the post of Junior Assistant- cum-Computei Operator vide Memo dated 17.12.2021 and accordingly petitioner joined duty on 24.L2.2021. However, the 4th respondert issued orders dated 27.01.2022. cancelling the petitioner's appointment to the post of Junior Assistant-cum- Computer Operator without issuing any prior notice or affording an opportunity to the petitioner herein on the ground that the B.Com degrer: acquired through Distance mode fron GITAM o o J SN, J w tt547 2022 University is not valid. Subsequenfly, the 4th respondent issued Memo dated 27.0t.2022 appointing the petitioner as Office Sub- Ordinate. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent No.4, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERU SED THE RECORD impugned proceedings vide Memo 4. The No.sE/oPlMBNR/ pO/JAlAdm-SA1/D.No.1s7l 20.22, dated 27.01.2022, of the 4th respondent is extracted hereunder: "Sri Rachuri Manideep, S/o Sri. Rachuri Nagaraj, (ID. No. 1052344), Ex JAO/Cash, DO / Narayanpet, (Retired from service on Medical Invalidation on 28.06.2021 A.N.) to appoint as Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator with conditions mentioned there-in and was allotted to Operation Circle Mahbaubnagar vide reference 1s! cited. He was posted ERO/Mahabubnagar vide reference 2nd cited. In the reference 3rd cited, it is directed to cancel the appointment orders issued vide reference 2.d cited forthwith and to issue fresh appointment order duly appointing Sri. Rachuri Manideep, S/o Sri. Rachuri Nagaraj, (ID.No. 1052344), Ex-JAO/Cash, DO/ Narayanpet, (Retired from service on Medical Invalidation on 28.O6.2O2t A.N.) as Office Sub-ordinate vide reference 3'd cited, as the B.Com degree (on distance mode from GITAM University, Vishakapatnam) acquired by Sri Rachuri Manideep S/o. Sri. Rachuri Nagaraj, I 4 SN, J \\t t1547 2022 Ex-JAO/Cash is not valid and not eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant Cum Computer Operator in terms of the orders issued by the TSSPDCL from time to time. r h rs issued d aooointino Sri. Rachuri Manideeo, S/o sri. Rachuri Naoaraj, (ID.No. 1052344), EX-JAO/cash, DO / Na rava n et, (Retired from servrce on Medical Inval idation n 28.O6.2o21 A.N.) as Ju ior Assistant n ar nde +^ +ha +}ra cchem denended of Medical Inva lidated emotovee vide 2"d cited is herebv cancelled. h at rall n/c -.tEirrrcc m r r r E it is further informed that, the service rendered by Sri. Racl-ruri Manideep, S/o Sri. Rachuri Nagaraj, Ex- JAO/Cash. DO / Narayanpet, (Retired from service on Medical Invalidation on 28.O6.2021 A.N.) in the cadre of Junior Assistant Cum Computer Operator if any will not be considered for any service benefits and will be treated as Purely Ternporary and Emergency service".

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the petitioner had furnished all the documents pertaining to petitioner's qualification for appointment .as Junior Assistant cum Computer Operator to the Respondent Corporation prior to issuance of order of appointment to the petitioner dated 27.O1.2022 and there was no suppressic)n or any fraud played by the petitioner and the a a 5 1 SN, J wP |54? 2022 petitioner had not rurnif inv'rffi.* the 4th respondent ought not to have issued the impugned and therefore, "nts proceedings dated 27.01.2022 cancelling the orders issued duly appointing the petitioner as Junior Assistant cum Computer Operator under scheme of Compassionate grounds to the dependants of medically invalidated employees vide Memo dated

22.12.2O2L. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that in view of the fact that the information furnished by the petitioner in the application seeking application is not false and since the respondent Corporation verified the documents submitted by the petitioner prior to issuing the order of appointment dated 22.L2.2021 in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be terminated unilaterally vide Memo dated 27.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.4 without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

6. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel for Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4 on the other 6 SN, J \\r? t 547 2022 hand contends that appointment order was issued in favour of the petitloner, appointing the petitioner on 22.12..2027 on compassionate grounds as Junior Assistant-cum-(:omputer Oferator under the scheme of Compassionate appointment by providing employment to the dependants of medical in'validated employee in TSSPDCL. Subsequently on verification of the documents furnished by the petitioner, it came to light that the petitioner acquired B.Com (Degree) through Distance E:ducation from GITAM L,niversity which is not valid and the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Junior Assista nt-cu m-Computer Operator issued by the TSSPDCL and therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 27.OL.2i022 was issued to the petitioner.

7. A bare perusal of the record indicates that admittedly as borne on record no opportunity of personal hearing had been provided to the petitioner prior to issuing the impugned orders dated 27.01..1022 by the 4th respondent herein and the same is not disputed by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who fairly submits that the petitioner may be provided an opportunity of personal hearing and lbr submission of a detailed representation raising petitioner's objections to the impugned proceeding s dated a e I 7 SN. J wP 11547 2022

27.01.2022 issueo of,ffi 4;'";ffi'herein and the 4th respondent may be directed to consider the same in accordance to law and duly reconsider the impugned decision i.e., proceedings dated 27.01.2022, passed by the 4th respondent. 8 Takino into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the tearned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation, (c) The contents of the impugned proceedings rr-de Memo No. SE/OplMBNRtpO/JAlAdm-SA1/D.No.t57/ 2022, dated 27.O1.2O22, of the 4th respondent, (d) The fact as borne on record that the petitioner had not furnished any false information in the application submitted by the petitioner seekang appointment as Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator, (e) The fact as borne on record that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity of persona! hearing prior 8 SN, J w)' 11547 2022 to issuing the impugned proceedings dated 27'OL'2O22bY the 4th respondent herein, which is in clear violation of princiPles of natural justice, The writ petition is allowed' The 4th respondent is directed to re-consider the impugned proceedings dated opportunity of Personal 27.01..2022 bY Providing an upon the Petitioner hearing to the Petitioner, representing by way of a detailed representation raising all the objections pertaining to the impugned proceedings dated 27.01.2O22 issued by the 4th respondent herein' within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 4th respondent is further directed to re-consider the subject issue upon submission of representation by the petit'oner pertaining to the objections raised with respect to the impugned proceedings dated 27'OL'2O22 issued by the 4th respondent herein, and upon receipt of the said representation of the petitioner within two (2) weeks thereafter in accordance to law' by providing an opportunity of persona! hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the detailed representation of the 9 r,..-r_i5rir re-considerataon r.tr6".r_.ElqF'r-_, proceedings dated 27.OI..2O22 respondent and duly communica petitioner. However, there shafi be Of wp-rryz_iljj the impugned Passed by the 4th te the decision to the no order as to costs. Asase quel, the miscellaneous any pending, in the Writ petition shall also stand clo sed. petitions, To, //TRUE COPYII

1. The Chairman and Manaoinn nir6^+^. c.^..., or reransini'L^*t#,'ilr?rsJts"il;""",j:! SD/-L. LAKSH DEPUTY BABU TRAR S sECTto N OFFICER ?r"y[,L1,:ower Distribution. company pqwer D istriburion compa ny : {i"B?:X;t'ili,lfliES.x3"?li:iliir3t J?iin : jiEiJ*".q,'d#f,:?sil,[:x?":,ijl.T3,i,T",i?:%,fJj"'companyof ^ii:i{fl i,fi S. One pq to SBt D SuDHARSHAN, Adyocate. IppUAj 6 ,-p;;cu to sP FoB SERVTCES ,, r,ri."r. ro,i,]" .,n," er rreransana. :339,:it3;is?,:,::,tifl [,i0",:il?i,,,i;,;";;;,panyof I 9* gQ to sf!{r.K,[pAya snl, $c rgq rsspDqr, to,Uc] I Two gp Cop;es. B,sK t 4-- l,r HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 s ORDER WP.No.11547 ot 2022 CC TODAY C. 7 -tl r:l Lrl L (r o) 3J F t o 4 LE1 rJ, s =o* \ \ o Hc I * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t4- ')6 \ , l)