(All v. Thermal Power Project, Kalamalla, Yerraguntla, Kadapa District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 11 Nov 2004
- Bench
- G YETHIRAJULU
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------------------- Dr. G.YETHIRAJULU, J 11th November, 2004 SKM TO 1 The Member Secretary, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer (Project), A.P.Transco, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, Kalamalla, Yerraguntla, Kadapa District. 3…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of .....RESPONDENTS
mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to attend interviews and absorb them in the vacancies according to BP (P&G Per.) Ms.36 dated 18-5- 1997 and B.P.(P&G Per.) Ms.37 dated 18-5-1997. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VADDIPAMULETY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.RAVINDRANATH The Court at the stage of admission made the following: HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU
WRIT PETITION NO.20901 OF 2004
ORDER:
The petitioners are claiming that they worked as Contract Labour during 1991- 92, 1993-94 as per the Service certificates produced by them from the concerned contractor. The contractor did not mention as to what type of work he undertook, and those certificates were also not counter-signed by the concerned engineers to confirm that the certificate issued by the Contractor is a genuine one. In the absence of such material, it is not possible to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners for interviews.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------------------- Dr. G.YETHIRAJULU, J 11th November, 2004 SKM TO 1 The Member Secretary, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer (Project), A.P.Transco, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, Kalamalla, Yerraguntla, Kadapa District. 3 The Superintending Engineer, A.P.Transco (Operations), Yerraguntla, Kadapa District. 4 Two C.D. Copies.
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 11 Nov 2004. The bench was G YETHIRAJULU.
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.