1 APHC010496482018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23342/2018 Between: Jillella Govinda Raju, ...PETITIONER AND The Transmission Corporation Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23342 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Order Writ of Direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India by directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner as regular workman against the post of Sub Engineer in 133/32 K V Sub Station in Operation circle APEPDCL Rajamahendravaram, on the ground that he has been discharging the duties of perennial nature of a regular workman from 01.09.2003 continuously which is otherwise prohibited under Sec.10 of the Contract Labour (R and A) Act 1970, as there are number of Sub Engineer posts available in APEPDCL in the interest of justice and to pass…” 2. Heard Sri P. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked as contract labour in the Sub-station of the respondent-Corporation since 2003. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation has initiated the process for absorption of contract labourer into regular course. The petitioner is qualified in the Written examination. Learned Counsel would further submit that some of the candidates challenged the process of giving weightage marks by filing writ petitions. The litigation went on for considerable length of time. Though the petitioner qualified in the written examination, he was not absorbed. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation would submit that notification under which the petitioner has applied and appeared for 3 written examination for regularization has been cancelled. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that such being the case, relief in the present matter has become infructuous and court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in reply would submit that the respondent-Corporation has to conduct a fresh examination for the sake of absorption of contract employees in the light of the judgment passed in the Writ appeals that was not done in the present case. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, since the notification under which the petitioner has qualified the written examination for absorption itself is cancelled, no further orders are required in this matter. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to work-out his remedy in the fresh notification which is to be issued. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 09.04.2025 UPS 4 15 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.23342 of 2018 Dated.09.04.2025 UPS