APHC010355212012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5505/2012 Between: N.chinna Rama Swamy, Anantapur Dist & 77 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Prl Secy Dept Of Entergy Hyd 6 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY 2. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL 3. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following Order: The petitioners are challenging the notifications dated 18.01.2012 and 25.01.2012, whereby the respondents issued notification for the recruitment of junior linemen. A direction from this Court is also sought for absorbing the petitioner into regular vacancies. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, appearing virtually online, submits that the petitioners are working as lineman, helpers/junior linemen and have been serving the respondents by HN, J W.P.No.5505_2012 2 undertaking high-risk work. Though the petitioners have been working for a considerable period of time, the respondents 2 and 3 have issued notifications dated 18.01.2012 and 25.01.2012, calling upon applications for the recruitment of junior lineman. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the petitioners are already working as linemen and discharging the duties of a lineman, there was no necessity for the respondents to issue a fresh notification. Alternatively, the respondents could have directly recruited or absorbed petitioners into existing vacancies. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have been working under the contractor for meager amounts and that they are all qualified and eligible for absorption into service. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have cancelled the notifications and the job of junior lineman is outsourced with the contractors supplying the required junior linemen on a contract basis. It is also submitted that there is no proposal by absorb the employees working under the contract. 5. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, once the notifications are concerned by the respondents, further orders on the issue of the challenge to the notifications need not be HN, J W.P.No.5505_2012 3 gone into by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners also fairly concedes that the petitioners are only concerned with regard to absorption into service. Insofar considering a direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioners into service is concerned, the petitioners would have to undergo the recruitment process. The policy of the respondents in outsourcing the job of junior lineman or a shift operator is not under challenge before this Court in the present writ petition. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 08.01.2025 NKA HN, J W.P.No.5505_2012 4 356 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.5505 of 2012 Date: 08.01.2025 NKA