APHC010364342014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18082/2014 Between:

1.M. YOGESWARA REDDY, ANANTHAPUR DIST, S/O RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC; CONTRACT LABOUR, (UNDER TERMINATION ), 33/11KV(SS), KONDAVANDLALPALLY, MUDIGUBBA MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, R/O NAGAREDDIPALLY, MALAKVEMULA,MUDIGUBBA(M), ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1.M D APSPDCL CHITTOOR DIST 2 OT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

2.THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATION A P S P D C L, KADIRI.

3.THE TRANSCO AND SPDCL CONTRACT LABOUR SOCIETY, DOOR NO.3-14, THAPOVANAM, ANANTAPUR REP BY ITS PRESIDENT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toIssue a writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Lr.No.DE/o/KDR/F.No/D.No.40/12, dt.24-05-2012 of terminating the service is illegal and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as contract labour and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 22663 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as contract labour since he is working in the organization for several years and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SAI MANOJ REDDY L Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL

2.JAGARLAMUDIKOTESWARIDEVI(SC FORAPSPDCL)

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18082/2014

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination proceedings issued by the respondent authority.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as contract labour by the respondent No.3 and was serving the respondent No.2 as shift operator. It is submitted that the 3^rd respondent at the behest of the 2^nd respondent had terminated the service of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of termination refers to the alleged fake ITI certificate submitted by the petitioner for securing a job of Junior Lineman.

3. It is further submitted that the said orders are devoid of any reasons and that the said orders are passed without conducting any enquiry. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially shortlisted for selection to the post of Junior Lineman as per the provisionally selected list dated 25.06.2011. It is further submitted that on account of the order of termination passed by the 3^rd respondent the petitioner could not be selected and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 without conducting any enquiry have simply rejected the case of petitioner for providing appointment as Junior Lineman. It is submitted that the respondent Nos.1 and

2 ought to have conducted a proper inquiry to ascertain the fact of the alleged forged certificate submitted by the petitioner or otherwise. Instead of conducting any inquiry the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have simply placed reliance on an illegal and irrational order of termination passed by the respondent No.3.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-

corporation submits that the grievance of the petitioner is already considered in another writ petition which was carried out in a Writ Appeal by a similarly placed candidate and Writ Appeal No.467 of 2023 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.

5. He further submitted that the termination by the contractor was under challenge in the writ petition and the unsuccessful writ petitioner filed Writ Appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench. The Hon’ble Division Bench of t