APHC010190012012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 16402/2012 Between: K. Suryanarayana (died) Per Lrs - 2to4 and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Central Power Distribution Company Of A P Ltd Apcpdcl and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL 2. V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL) 3. JAGARLAMUDI KOTESWARI DEVI The Court made the following Order: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner was working under the contractor and was eligible to be appointed as sub-engineer in pursuance of B.P.Ms.No.36. The respondents were in the process of filling up the posts of sub-engineer and at that point of time, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28771 of 1997. This Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with B.P.Ms.No.36. The petitioner also attended the interview for the post of sub-engineer against 50% of the vacancies for ex-casual 2 labour. The petitioner filed W.P.No.16516 of 1999 along with five others and the writ petition was disposed off with a direction to the respondents not to disqualify the petitioner upon consideration for absorption. It is submitted that the petitioner was eligible for appointment; however, orders of appointment were not issued to the petitioner. It is also submitted that similarly placed other employees; however, were issued orders of appointment. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner passed away and the legal heirs are brought on record. 2. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was considered along with others but was not found eligible. It is also submitted that B.P.Ms.No.36 was subsequently withdrawn by the respondents and that 50% vacancies, which were earmarked for ex-casual labour, were filled up. It is further submitted that no vacancies are available for considering the case of the petitioners. 3. Recording the submissions of both the learned counsel, no further orders are required in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 29.01.2025 NKA 4 33 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.16402 of 2012 Date: 29.01.2025 NKA