O R D E R

Delay condoned .

Heard Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, learned counsel appearing for th e Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limite d (petitioner). The sole respondent is represented by Mr. C.B .

Gururaj, learned counsel .

The respondent was appointed on contractual basis an d thereafter he was absorbed together with many others on 19.12.201 9 (Annexure P/5). It was mentioned in the conditional absorptio n order that the absorption is subject to verification of th e genuineness of the academic technical qualifications and if thos e are found “fake” or “bogus”, then the services are liable to b e terminated of the absorbed employees .

Thereafter the service of the respondent was terminated o n

01.09.2021 which led to filing of the Writ Petition before the Hig h Court. The learned Single Judge in WP No. 31154 of 2021 found tha t termination was ordered without adhering to the principles o f natural justice and accordingly ordered for reinstatement of th e employee but liberty was given to the employer to proceed agains t the employee, by adhering to the due process .

The above came to be challenged by the employer in the Wri t Appeal No. 739 of 2022. The Division Bench in the impugned orde r dated 18.07.2023 noted that the regularisation of the responden t was based upon ITI Certificate which was found to be not genuin e and accordingly observed that the direction for consideration o f the respondent’s service as Artisan Grade-III should have bee n ordered as he has the requisite qualification for the post o f Artisan Grade-III .

Mr. Rao would argue that such direction for consideration fo r another post i.e., Artisan Grade-III should not have been ordere d as the respondent secured the benefit of absorption order, on th e basis of fake certificate .

In his turn, Mr. C.B. Gururaj, learned counsel for th e respondent would argue that all that the Division Bench ha d directed is for consideration of the representation of th e respondent’s service as Artisan Grade-III and there was n o direction to favourably consider such representation. Accordingl y it is argued by the respondent’s counsel that the High Court shoul d have allowed the employer to deal with the representation of th e respondent on merit .

The submission made by the learned counsel for the parties ar e considered .

The counsel has drawn our attention to the order date d

15.11.2019 (Annexure P/4) and the absorption order dated 19.12.201 9 (Annexure P/5). In the circumstances of this case, we deem i t appropriate to say that the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2023 o f the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal No. 739 of 2022 should b e read as a simple direction to the employer to consider th e representation filed by the respondent on its own merit withou t being influenced either by the order passed by the learned Singl e Judge or by the Division Bench .

With the above clarification of the impugned orde r (18.07.2023), the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of .

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed .

(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT )

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRA R