SRl. G v. SHIVAJI

Judgment

2. Petition under Article 226 oi the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner against the posts remained unfilled in KTPS - V and Vl Stages, Lower Sileru Hydro Electrical Scheme (LSHES) and also under Land Loser Category in KTPS - V and Vl Stages. Thereby, carrying forward the vacancies to the next recruitment, instead of considering the petitioner, who is next in the merit list which is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of lndia apart from contrary to the terms of the Notification No. 01/CGM(HRy2010, dated 05-01-2011 and Supplementary Notification No. 01/CGM(HR)/2O1 1, dated 17 -10-201 1 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 7166 OF 20161

Petition under section isl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the writ petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment in the existing vacancies of the posts of Jonior plant Aftendant on basis of his merit marks under Local Scheduled Tribe Category in KTpS _ V & Vl Stages and Lower sileru Hydro Erectricar scheme (LSHES) pending disposar of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. V. SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. V. UMADEVI, SC FOR TGGENCO The Court made the following: ORDER TTIE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIONNo.5 637 o f2016 ORDER: The petitioner rcndered 16 years of service in ITDA' Bhadrachalam as Electrician' As per the Notification dated 05 '01 '201 I ' and Supplementary Notification dated 17'10'2011' he is eligible for weightage marks of l0 due to his experience' He made a representation requesting to add the additional weightage marks; however' no action was Laken. It is his further case that as per G'O'Ms'No'98' dated l5-on.tgao, 50% ofthe vacancies are reserved for land losers/displaced persons or their dependent family, whose land exceeding one acre was acquired by APGENCO, and any unfilled vacancies from this category would be converted to "General Vacancies" and htted by non-displaced P ersons/general candidates' It is his grievance that he scored 6l'53 marks and the cutofffor is 64'l?; and' selection in the Lower Siteru Hydro Electrical ,scheme had the weightage marks been added as per the notification' he would have been in the selection zone' Further' the unfilled 50 vacancies have treen carried forward to the next recruitment cycle instead of considering tlre candidature of next meritorious candidate; and therefore' the action of the respondent authorities is iltegal and arbitrary' 2 - Heard Mr. G' Shivaji, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and \r{r.V.Umudevi, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent-TGGENCO' Femsed the record. 2 utp 5637 _20t6 NBK- J

3. Learned counsel for the petitioneg while making submissions on the lines of writ affrdavit, would primarily contend that the petitioner scored 61.53 marks, whereas the cut_off was 64.11; however, had he been granted the additionar weightage marks in view of the previous experience as per the notification, he would have been in the selection zone. He further contends that the respondents retained 50 unfilled vacancies in KTPS-v & vI stages and carried forward the vacancies for the next year' instead of considering the next meritorious candidate of the present merit list. It is also contended that the respondents ought to have considered the petitioner against the unfilled posts in KTPS V & V[ stages, Lower Sileru Hydro Electrical Schemg and under the Land loser category, instead of carrying forward the vacancies to the next recruitrnent and' therefore, the action of respondent authorities is ilregal and arbitrary. 4' Learned Standing counsel, basing on the counter affidavit, contends that the petitioner,s previous experience in ITDA project, Bhadrachalam, cannot be counted for awarding weightage marks as that experience is not within the domain of ApGENCo. It is contended that the cut-off mark for Scheduled Tribe candidates is 64.73 and tre petitioner scored 6l '53 marks. It is further contended that the 50,unfired vacancies in K'tpS-IV & VI were reserved for women and as there was no eligible women candidate for consideration under the vacancies, those 50 vacancies were carried forward to the next recruitment. [t is also contended that there are 74 candid,ates who secured more than the petitioner, howcver, they were not selected as they scored less than the ( ( 3 wP_i63 7_2O r 6 NAK, prescriM cut-off marks of 64.73' Learned counsi't contends that there is no merit in the writ Petition.

5. Having considered tlre respective submissions and perused the record, at the outset, it is relevant to refer to the relevant paragraph of the Notihcation issued in 2010, which reads as follows: N FICA No.01/CG il(HRy2010 Note (il (ii) the General Candidates' Labourers" satisfying the (ii0 including those (iv) All qualitications as "Contract prescribed; "Contract Laboure6" who approached Labour CourgHigh Court and obtained orders for considering their undergone cases; the candidates APSEB or "ApprenUceshiP" either in APGENCO; and also the Land Losers: or his/her dependent son, daughter or spouse" whose land or more than I acre and above, was acquired by APGENCO are also required to respond to this notification, however, subiect to satisfying the qualifications and eligibility criteria prescribed in the ootification." who have the erstwhile ) ) \ )

6. A perusal of the Note (iv) of the Notification would show that even the candidates c[aiming concession under various categories i'e'' Contract Labourers, beneficiaries of orders of the Court' or apprentices in erstwhile APSEB or APGENCO, or land losers or the dependents thereof, are also required to satisff the qualification and eligibility criteria prescribed in the Notification' Further' the Notification provides 4 r{p 5637_20t6 NAK, J I additional weightage of l0 marks for candidates with over 6 months experience in Power Generating Stations, and 5 marks for less than six months experience. The petitioner, admittedly, has experience in ITDA Bhadrachalam, which is not a power generating station that qualifies him for additional weightage and therefore his claim for additional weightage on that count cannot be countenanced.

7. Further, the petitioner is neither a land loser himselt nor an eligible dependent of a land loser, for claiming weightage of marks under that category, nor seek consideration under the 50 unfilled vacancies as those vacancies have been carried forward to the next recruitment. In that view of the matter, this Court does not f,rnd any itlegatity in the impugned action of respondent authorities and the writ petition is liablc ro be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cosrs. pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.T To, //TRUE COPY// \ SDI-L. VIJAYA LAXMI SISTANT REGISTRAR \ sEcloN oFFtcER i. F;: EE S.y,:,,",M^.#yf t.rFJ."?B c IoPUCI BM BS ) HIGH COURT DATED:l3 tOZtZOZs ORDER WP.No.5637 ot 2O16 c sR IHE s o \* '.:.. \\ e 10luL 2W r' f '. it I . t1 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a1 6 las-