IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Tirupal Naik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.19361 of 2022
Decided on : 23-08-2024
Employment - Writ Petition - Articles 14, 16, 19 - G.O.Ms.No.94 - The court analyzed the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.94 regarding reservation in employment and the constitutional provisions, concluding that the petitioners failed to establish their claims for preferential treatment in recruitment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Community, sought employment as shift operators based on prior temporary work during a strike, alleging violations of reservation rules and constitutional rights by the respondents in filling vacancies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of entitlement to the posts or violations of reservation rules, and that the G.O.Ms.No.94 was not applicable to the respondents.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to preferential treatment in recruitment for shift operator posts based on their previous temporary employment and whether the respondents violated reservation rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without evidence of sanctioned posts or a violation of the Rule of Reservation, the petitioners' claims were not maintainable, and the absence of an employer-employee relationship further weakened their case.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER:
1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:
2. The case of the petitioners is as follows:
3. The petitioners herein are all unemployed and belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Community and seeking temporary employment for the posts notified at the Respondents Organization based on the previous services rendered by them as contract labourers in the strike period of its employees and providing security to safeguard the sub-stations and of A.P.TRANSCO assets vide instructions issued vide Lr.No.C/TR/SE/TR/D/SS/ADE-1/D.No.506/18, dated 20.02.2018 and also in critical sub-stations as alternative, managing power in case of personnel who were on strike. They are at fond hope that their services would be recognized and whenever the vacancies were arose, they would be considered by giving the preference as contract labours/temporary employees by the Respondent organisation.
4. While so, the Respondents organization called for filling up of the 147 shift operator posts in the AP Electrical Department, Anantapur Division and the orders were issued to all the AE's to process and selection of suitable personnel with the required qualification as ITI Electrical branch. All the Petitioners herein have the required qualifications.
5. It is submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.94, GAD (SER.A) Department, dated 28.03.2003 is issued with specific guidelines for contractual appointments, wherein all the departments shall maintain separate rosters and Rule of Reservation in the recruitment of the contract basis as per rules laid down under Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.
6. It is further submitted that the Respondents herein are not following any law and all the shift operators' posts were filled up by violating the rules and regulations or law and on the recommendations of the letters of MLAs and MPs. The Respondents herein are appointing and sending their own men to the contractor and accordingly utilizing their services as the outsourcing employees or contract employees.
7. Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed counter affidavit and Vacate Stay petition on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 5, wherein it is stated that the averments made in the writ petition are baseless and hereby denied. Further, it is to place on record that Respondent No.2/A.P. TRANSCO did not call for the filling up of 147 Shift Operator posts and no orders were issued to any A.E in the AP TRANSCO to fill the posts with required qualifications as ITI Electrical branch. The CMD/A.P.TRANSCO has not issued any orders to fill up the posts of shift operators. Therefore, the writ petition suffers from making false statements and the petitioner is liable to be punished for committing perjury. The writ petition is liable to be rejected on the very ground that the Writ Petitioner had approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands.
8. It is further submitted that the O&M manning works of 220 KV and 132 KV will be awarded to the O&M manning contractors by way of tendering/bidding at zone level. The O&M manning contractor will deploy labour for O&M manning works at 132KV and 220KV Substations. Hence considering the representations of the petitioners is
The court established that claims for preferential treatment in employment must be substantiated with evidence of entitlement and that the absence of an employer-employee relationship precludes the i....
it is difficult to extend minimum time scale to the petitioners as they were not engaged by respondent Nos. 4 to 11 either on contract basis or outsourcing basis.
Administrative action converting positions does not violate service regulations; outsourcing employees lack direct employer-employee relationship with the Corporation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.