Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1177
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUJOY PAUL, NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, JJ.
Sri M. Lakshma Naik and others -Appellants
Versus
The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited and others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.35647 of 2022 and 34543 of 2023
Decided on : 11-11-2024
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Employment
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REFORM ACT : S.23, S.24
ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REFORMS TRANSFER SCHEME RULES : R.7, R.7(6)(a), R.7(6)(b), R.7(6)(c), R.7(6)(d), R.7(6)(e), R.7(6)(f), R.7(7)
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT : S.2(2), S.79(c)
Headnote
(B) Writ Petition - Requirement of pleadings - The court emphasized that constitutional challenges must be supported by clear and precise pleadings, and mere oral arguments are insufficient to invalidate statutory provisions. (Paras 24-32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, Sub-Engineers with TRANSCO, challenged the constitutionality of an amendment that deleted service weightage provisions for promotion to Additional Assistant Engineer, arguing it violated statutory protections under the Electricity Reforms Act and related regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioners did not establish a breach of statutory provisions and that the amendment was within the powers of TRANSCO, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.
Issues: The main issues included the competence of TRANSCO to issue the amendment and whether the petitioners' rights were adversely affected.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of specific pleadings undermined the petitioners' claims, and the amendment was valid as it fell within the powers of TRANSCO.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
For the Petitioners: Sri M. Surender Rao, Senior Counsel, representing Ms. P. Anusha and Sri Srinivasa Madiraju
For the Respondents: Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. K. Udaya Sri, Ms. V. Uma Devi, Sri Zakir Ali Danish, Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy,
ORDER:
Sujoy Paul, J.
The petitioners, Sub-Engineers, working with the Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (TRANSCO) were earlier eligible to be appointed by transfer as Additional Assistant Engineer, as per the Rules prevailing before issuance of T.O.O. (Jt- Secy-Per) Ms.No.1475, dated 08.09.2022, whereby through Amendment II, the erstwhile provisions/Note contained in Annexure-I of Regulation 6 (a) of Part III of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Board) Service Regulations (APSEB) was deleted, which is detrimental to the interest of petitioners to become Additional Assistant Engineers by way of transfer.
2. In this batch of petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution the constitutionality of T.O.O. (Jt-Secy-Per) Ms.No.1475 dated 08.09.2022, is called in question by principally contending that it runs contrary to spirit of Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 (‘Act of 1998’), Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 1999 (‘Rules of 1999’) and tripartite agreements.
Contention of the petitioners:
3. Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners urged that the main challenge to impugned order dated 08.09.2022 is on the ground of competence of the Corporation in issuing Amendment II to delete the existing proviso of item (i) and (ii) and Note-3 (service weightage), in Column (2) against Additional Assistant Engineer under Category-4 Class-II in Branch-II Civil. The ‘note’ which was deleted by way of issuance of impugned order reads thus:
“Note:-
For the computation of eight years of service half the continuous service other than the service as nominal muster roll worker rendered prior to acquisition of LEE diploma qualification subject to a maximum of four years shall be taken into account for all categories.”
4. It is contended that the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (‘Act of 1948’) was enacted to provide rationalization of production in supply of electricity for taking necessary conduction of Electrical Development and for all matters incidental thereto.
5. Sub-section 2 of Section 2 of the Act of 1948 defines the word ‘Board’. Section 5 provides ‘constitution and composition’ of said Electricity Board. Section 79 empowers the ‘Board’ to make regulations by publishing notifications in the official gazette in relation to the matters provided therein, which includes the matters mentioned in Clause (c) thereof. As envisaged in Clause (c), the ‘Board’ is empowered to make regulations relating to the duties of the officers and other employees of the ‘Board’ and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service.
6. In exercise of power under Section 79 (c) of the Act of 1948, the ‘Board’ made seven types of regulations, 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations Part-I. 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations Part- II. 3. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations Part- III. 4. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Leave Regulations. 5. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Special Pay and Allowance Regulations. 6. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board GPF Regulations. 7. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Pension Regulations.
7. It is canvassed that the aforesaid seven regulations were brought into force by BPMS No.199 dated 04.03.1970. The petitioners are concerned with the APSEB Service Regulations Part I, II and III. Part-III of the regulation provides for constitution of service and satisfaction thereof.
8. It is contended that the post of Additional Assistant Engineer, which was included in Category-I of Clause III of Branch-I of Electrical was required to be filled up by appointment from the categories of ‘Board’ employees mentioned in Annexure-I to the regulation. The regulation provides that the employees in the category of posts mentioned therein having eight years of service after acquiring LEE Diploma were entitled to be consi
