HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION Nos.3012 & 13461 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3012 of 2007 that in pursuance of the Notification dated 23.11.2001 issued by the respondents for selection of Sub-Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Junior Linemen, LDC- cum-Computer Operator etc., the petitioner has applied to the post of LDC- cum-Computer Operator and selected to the said post. He joined in the said post on 20.06.2002 and he has completed two years of satisfactory service by 19.06.2004. Respondent No.1 has issued proceedings dated 14.06.2005 regularizing his service along with his batch mates with effect from the date of issuance of the proceedings i.e., on 14.06.2005 and respondent No.4 has issued proceedings dated 19.09.2005 temporarily appointing the petitioner as LDC along with his batch mates w.e.f. 14.06.2005 in the time scale of Rs.4,740-8,765/- It is the further case of the petitioner that he is entitled to get regularized immediately after completion of two years of service, but the respondents have not issued proceedings of regularization within time, but they regularized the service of the other employees who were appointed in pursuance of the same notification in different cadres immediately after completion of two years of service. The respondents have also regularized the services of LDC-cum-Computer operators who belong to a different company i.e., APCPD company limited 2 from very next day after completion of two years of satisfactory service vide proceedings dated 12.10.2006. The competent authority to regularize the services of the Sub-Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Junior Linemen and LDC-cum-Computer Operator is one and the same, but surprisingly the respondents regularized the service of the petitioner along with his batch mates after about three years from the date of their initial appointment, whereas the employees who were appointed in other cadre services were regularized immediately after completion of two years which is discriminative action. It is his further case that the petitioner filed representation before respondent No.2 to consider his regularization with effect from the date of completion of two years or else to relax the probation period as the respondents themselves have not issued the proceedings of regularization immediately after completion of two years. Respondent No.3 has issued proceedings dated 16.10.2006 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Due to the delay in regularization for about one year, still the petitioner is in probation for which the respondents have not considered his case for promotion to the post of UDC. Hence, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent Nos.1, 4 and 3 dated 14.06.2005, 19.09.2005 and 16.10.2006 respectively are illegal and the same are liable to be set aside. 2. The case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.13461 of 2007 is that the respondents are going to prepare Departmental Panel Committee 3 (hereinafter called as ‘DPC’) on 28.06.2007. The respondents orally stated to the petitioner that they are not going to consider his case while preparing the Panel Committee and moreover the respondents are insisting the petitioner to withdraw W.P.No.3012 of 2007 and threatening him, otherwise his case will not be considered while preparing DPC. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is fully eligible for promotion, but the respondents are not going to consider his case only on the ground that the petitioner filed W.P.No.3012 of 2007 for regularization of his services immediately after completion of two years of service. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Since the Writ Petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is same and both the Writ Petitions are interrelated, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Writ Petitions by way of this Common Order. 4. Heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kata, learned standing counsel for the respondents in both the Writ Petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavit contended that the respondents have not regularized the service of the petitioner immediately after completion of two years of service from the date of initial appointment and they are not going to consider the petitioner’s name at the time of preparing Departmental Panel Committee for effecting promotions to the post of UDC stating that W.P.No.3012 of 2007 is pending. He further submitted that W.P.No.3012 of 4 2007 does not come into the way of the respondents for effecting promotions and does not cause any prejudice to the respondents, since both are independent in nature. He further submitted that this Court vide order dated 15.02.2007 in W.P.Nos.3012 of 2007 granted interim direction directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of service w.e.f 20.06.2004 in the cadre of LDC/Computer Operator and this Court vide dated 26.06.2007 in Writ Petition No.13461 of 2007 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of UDC in the ensuing Departmental Promotion Committed meeting to be held on 28.06.2007 or in future date without reference to the pendency of Writ Petition No.3012 of 2007. Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit of respondent No.4 in both the Writ Petitions contended that APSPDCL has invited applications for appointment of LDC/Computer Operators on contract basis for a period of one year vide Notification dated 23.11.2001. The petitioner was appointed as LDC-cum-Computer operator vide Memo dated 10.06.2002 on yearly contract basis for a period of one year. They were issued with posting orders vide Memo dated 17.06.2002 wherein the petitioner’s name was at serial No.6. He further submitted that a decision was taken by the APTRANSCO in its internal board meeting held on 10.06.2005 to regularize 5 the services of LDC-cum-Computer Operators appointed on yearly contract basis, who have completed two years of service and accordingly, a letter dated 14.06.2005 was communicated to the respective Chairmans of the Distribution Companies to evolve the performance of the LDC/Computer Operators appointed on contract basis and regularize their services as per the guidelines prescribed therein. Accordingly vide Memo dated 19.09.2005, nine candidates, who were working as LDC/computer operators on yearly contract basis, have been temporarily appointed as LDCs w.e.f. 14.06.2005. He further submitted that the petitioner made a representation seeking exemption of one year regular service in the cadre of LDC for declaration of probation and the same was rejected vide Memo dated 16.10.2006. At that stage the Writ Petitioner filed W.P.No.3012 of 2007 challenging the proceedings dated 16.10.2006 rejecting his claim for declaration of probation even before completion of two years and also regularize his services immediately after completion of two years of service w.e.f. 19.06.2004. He further submitted that this Court by an order dated 15.02.2007 in WPMP No.3869 of 2007 granted interim order to the effect that ‘there shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider for regularization of services of the petitioner with effect from 20.06.2004 in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk/Computer Operator and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order’. In terms of the directions of this Court, the petitioner’s claim was considered 6 and he was issued with speaking orders rejecting his claim. He further submitted that the petitioner’s services were regularized along with other batch mates w.e.f. 14.06.2005 and subsequent to his regularization in the cadre, the Departmental Promotion Committee prepared the panel of eligible candidates. The petitioner’s candidature was also considered and he was issued with proceedings dated 31.07.2007 promoting him as U.DC and accordingly he joined the post on 07.08.2007. He further submitted that since the petitioner was regularly appointed as LDC w.e.f. 14.06.2005 with probationary rights, he cannot seek regularization of his services prior to 14.06.2005. The proceedings dated 14.06.2005 and consequential proceedings dated 19.09.2005 are perfectly in order and the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected by proceedings dated 16.10.2006. He further submitted that mere performance of satisfactory service through a contract period does not entitle the petitioner of any benefit. The Writ Petition is wholly misconceived and the Writ Petitioner approached this Court in posthaste manner. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as LDC-cum- Computer Operator on yearly contract basis in A.P.S.P.D.C.L for a period of one year vide Memo No.SE/O/CDP/Adm/SI/F7/D.No.1263/02, dated 7 10.06.2002. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner’s service in LDC-cum- Computer Operator was regularized vide proceedings in Lr.No.ED(HRD & TRF)/DS (P/AS(P)/PO-I/A1/106/2004 dated 14.06.2005. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was temporarily appointed as LDC along with his batch mates w.e.f 14.06.2005 in the time scale pay of Rs.4740-8765 vide Memo No.SE/O/KDP/Adm/S1/F.7/D.No.2492/05 dated 19.09.2005. The petitioner made a representation seeking exemption of one year regular service in the cadre of LDC for declaration of probation. The said representation was rejected vide proceedings in Memo No.CGM/HRD/DS/AS-I/PO (Adm) D.No.2580/06 dated 16.10.2006 by the Chief General Manager (HRD), as the petitioner has not completed the two years of service from the date of initial appointment. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are adopting different procedures in regularizing the service of LDC-cum-computer operators. The petitioner and his batch mates were regularized after three years of service and the similarly situated candidates, who were appointed in pursuance of the same notification, were regularized after two years of their service. In the counter, respondent No.3 has categorically stated that the petitioner was appointed as LDC/Computer operator on contract basis initially for a period of one year on 20.06.2022 and his contract period was extended for one more year w.e.f from 20.06.2003 and again it was extended for one more year with effect from 20.06.2004. 8 10. Perusal of the counter would further indicate that a decision was taken by the APTRANSCO in its internal board meeting held on 10.06.2005 to regularize the services of LDC-cum-computer operators appointed on yearly contract basis who have completed three years of service and accordingly, a letter dated 14.06.2005 was communicated to the respective Chairmans of the Distribution Companies to evolve the performance of the LDC/Computer operators appointed on contract basis and regularize their services as per the guidelines prescribed therein and accordingly the petitioner’s service was regularized w.e.f. 14.06.2005. 11. 11. Perusal of the record would indicate that the petitioner questioned the proceedings of respondent No.1 dated 14.06.2005 after two years in the year 2007. Pursuant to the same much water had flown and if the case of the petitioner is considered at this stage, it may adversely affect the employees who have been promoted prior to his promotion. 12. It is the contention of the respondents in W.P.No.13461 of 2007 that Right to promotion is not a vested right and a person who has not completed satisfactory probation in the LDC cadre is not eligible for consideration to the post of UDC and the petitioner’s claim would be considered subject to availability and eligibility. Perusal of the record would indicate that this Court vide order dated 26.06.2007 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of UDC in the ensuing Departmental Promotion Committee meeting to be held on 28.06.2007 or in 9 any future date, without reference to the pendency of writ petition No.3012 of 2007 before this Court. Perusal of the counter in Writ Petition No.13461 of 2007 would indicate that the petitioner’s candidature was also considered and was issued proceedings dated 31.07.2007 promoting him as U.D.C and accordingly he joined the post on 07.08.2007. 12. In view of the above and taking the submissions of both the learned counsel into consideration, as the petitioner questioned the proceedings of respondent No.1 dated 14.06.2005 after two years of its issuance and much water flown. Therefore considering his candidature for promotion from an ante-date at this length of time does not arise. Further, the material shows that the petitioner’s candidature was considered for promotion as U.D.C and he has joined in the said post. Therefore, there is nothing remains for adjudication in Writ Petition No.13461 of 2007. 13. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.3012 of 2007 is dismissed and W.P.No.13461 of 2007 is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 07.03.2025 MP 10 259 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION Nos.3012 & 13461 OF 2007 Dated 07.03.2025 MP