HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.22566 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri A. Phani Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“.....to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that rejection orders issued to the petitioners through Lr.No.CGM(HRD) /GM(Per)/AS(Pers&Ser)/PO- A/214-A2/2022-1 dated 21.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 upholding the finding of previous committee that record proof submitted by the petitioners not available in pursuance to the notification dated 08.06.2006 and revised notification dated 13.07.2006 in speaking orders dated 18.02.2020 inspite of the said orders were set aside by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.11825/2021 & batch on 09.12.2021 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and set aside the same and declare that the petitioners are eligible and qualified to hold the post of Contract Junior Lineman on par with others as per notification dated 08.06.2006 and revised notification dated 13.07.2006 and grant all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners were engaged as Contract Junior Linemen in the year 2006 and have been serving continuously since then. Their requests for regularization were initially rejected due to pending criminal cases, which have been ended in acquittal or closure. Pursuant to W.P.No.11825 of 2021 and batch, on 09.12.2021, this Court set aside the rejection orders and directed for reconsideration of the requests of the petitioners. However, the Respondents issued fresh rejection orders dated 04.01.2024 citing a new ground that the petitioners were not sponsored through the Employment Exchange which was never part of the original rejection. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:

4. The petitioners approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.11825 of 2021 and batch and the relevant portion of the said order dated 09.12.2021 is extracted hereunder: “When the matters are taken up for hearing, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents had fairly conceded that the impugned orders dated 18.02.2020 and 09.03.2021 be set aside, as they are not reasoned orders. If only the petitioners submit fresh representations, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that let the petitioners be permitted to submit fresh representations and let the respondents consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 18.02.2020 and 09.03.2021 are set aside, as no reasons are assigned while rejecting the cases of the petitioners. The petitioners are permitted to submit fresh representations to the respondents seeking appointment as a Junior Lineman within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon such representations being received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.”

5. The respondent No.2 - Chief General Manager (HRD) TSSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad addressed a letter vide Lr.No. CGM(HRD) / GM(Per)/ AS(Pers & Ser)/ PO-A/ 214-A2/ 2022-1,