High Court · 2025

Petition under section-15 1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or *,e petiio-n,i't,""r,igf iorn may be preased to direct the respondents to retain .oniinr" tnl'p"titi,ir"i. .s sweeper and Scavenger inthe1strespondentcorporation,n""Ji,j!i.o".",i'oitn","inWritpetition "no lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section '15'1 .cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suooort of the p"iiti"ii,'in; niin cor.t may be preased to 3';5,""T""JJff#ijrl?lffi}.1r'r'ii"iJ "","iLJ"Er'ii" Judsmeni oi-t{u-lo}oru lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Between: 1 2 AND iffi ii?$1H:,i,Tf,fl5l",:,""1,'?f ,11ff t1tRl',.B,iif 6Xl,?,leemaMars, Il3J,)::3#::n?""81;i:it"1;;fl?.,3;l:,.,8:[:l#sa'of f ice,Jeevan ...PETITIONERS '1. K. Shobha Rani. D n:[f"i"[tilii*..ffi Sst?:1:;f,y",i,a::JJ*:,*?8";3tu",u?iff ,iijolji tndia, Zonat Office o""'i,"*,.^;X_::,ij:::-1: y91.s, ucc. Scavenger, LtC of _ opp. Secret5ri"t, HvJ",r6#Ai.d B::.rTiilEl,n8l"ill.,o" Secunderabad

2. S.K.Babu, S/o. Chota Miya, Aged about 46 , 'in"'iiigl-, ..,RESPONDE NTS/PETITIONERS Petition under section 151. cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or tne petitioi, court may be preased To ;i:;;:;T l?fllL:J:ilijn:ua in r nir.ro i oi )oi d ii w p r.r" i oiii"r ib:irill oa_ Counsel for the petitioners: SRl. V R MACHAVARAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI BATHULA RAJ KTRAN (SC FOR LIC ) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 10545 of 2Ol8 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: 'to issue an appropiate order or direction more partiatlarlg one in the nqture'of Wit o1 Mandamus declaing tlle. action of ,l.tpona.ntt hirein in not consideing the candidature of ;; ;;;iri"""r, for regularizatiorl to tle post of sweepe'r and -iio*ng., in tie ls respondent corporation eue-n though tLLeA ior. to^pr.t"d 33 gears seruici in tte 1* respondent co,rporatioi and as per the judgnent 9f -th1 lo^2ourable ot*O lrir"^"- Cr"rt in Ciuil APpeaLs Nos 953 968 of '-90!: tlrc petitioners bg replacing tti.Ot.Zol l and. trying ti 'e^ou" Sueepe-r and with fresh temporory employees to the ;;;;;"A; ; riregat-arttitrarl ond uiot'Ltiue oJ Afcte 21 of the Constitition of lrulia and' cinsequentlg direct the responllent to'regularize the servbes of the petitiotlers herein to ;;;;;;ir" the post of Sweeper ond' Scouengei with alt consequential benefits..." .post -of

2. Today when the matter is taken up for consideration' learned counsel for petitioners as well as respondents submits that the subject matter of this writ Petition is squarely covered by the order in W.P.No'19445 cf 2011 dated l2'O7'2011 and in W.P.No.1969 6 of 2Ol1 dated l4'O7 '2011 and also in view of the Civil Appeal Nos.953-968 of 2OO5' dated 18'01'2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LiJe Insuro;nce Cotpor:o:tion of India Vs. D,V.Antl Kumar.l 1

3. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court relied on the Judgment dismissed W'P'No'i9445 of 2011 by the following order: - ' zool (+)nLo zzt " Relging on the judgment of the Supreme CoutT in L.I.C. of India v. D-V. Anil Kumqr (in Ciuil Appeat Nos.95i1 968 of 2005, dated 18 1_ 2011) our indulgence rs soughf to command the respon<lents to hold another one ttme limited examination. To opprecictte the cofttenhon appropriate it is to reproduce paragraph 6 of fite tenns and conditions of the scheme approuecl bg the Supreme Court in judgmerlt supra.- "Such of those temporary employees uho do not apptA and not successful shctll cease to be in the emplogment. It is clqrtfi.ed thctt those temporary persons who qre not gouented under these submissions, shall also ce(1se to be in the empLogment." 'Pentsal of tlre reproduction makes it uery cLear that temporqry emplogees who could not opplg or failedln quaLifu the examinatton shall cease to be in the emplogment. Admitted case of the petitioners is that their applications Luere not considered because of lack of requisite expeience. In that uiew of the matter, u,te find nothing turong u_rith the denial of consideration. Morc. so, the rellef sought bg the petitioners is qaite contrary to the mandate of the judgment supro. obuiousltl grant of such relieJ bg tfus Court is out of quest.lrn. Dismissed. " 4 . In that view of the matter, this Writ petition also stands dismissed. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order in W.P.No.19445 of 2Ol1 dated 12.OZ.2O11. No order as to costs.

5. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand clo sed. //TRUE COPYII s K.BHAVANI SWAMY ISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRl. V R MACHAVARAIVI Advocate [OPUCI one CC to SRt. BATHULA RAJ KTRAN (SC FOR LtC ) tOpUCl Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of the order in wp. No. 1 944 5 0f 2011 dated 12.07 .2011) To,

3. KKS LS ,%- \ * ---{ \r - I HIGH COURT DATED:09t06t2025 \ I R1' o( i lri ,: ,j IO o ,14 ttlE 20fr t DE Sf,c ; r' r: ORDER WP.No.10545 of 2O1B DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Y g\ ,. THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRINISAR AHIUAD KAKRU AND THE HON'BLE SHRIJUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION N o.19445 0F 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Chiel Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in L'l'C' of lndia v' D.V. Anil Kumar(in Civil Appeal Nos.953-968 of 2005, dated 1B-1- 2011) our indulgence is sought to command the respondents to hold another one time limited examination. To appreciate the contention, appropriate it is to reproduce paragraph 6 of the terms and conditions of the scheme approved by the Supreme Court in judgment supra' "Such of those temporary employees who do nol apply and not success{ul shall cease to be in the employment' lt is clarified that those temporary persons who are not governed under these submissions, shall also cease to be in the employment " Penisal of the reproduction makes it very clear that temporary employeeswhocouldnotapplyorfailedtoqualifytheexaminationshall ceasetobeintheemployment.Admittedcaseofthepetitionersisthat theirapplicationswerenotconsideredbecauseoflackolrequisite experience. ln that view of the matter, we find nothing wrong with the denialofconsideration'Moreso,thereliefSoughtbythepetitionersis quite contrary to the mandate of the judgment supra, obviously grant of such relief by this Court is out ol question. Dismissed' VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHIVAD KAKRU, CJ