APHC010768662012 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: 5508/2012 Between: Sk.madarjani & 17 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Chairman M D Apspdcl Tirupati 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K UDAYA SRI 2. 3. V R REDDY KOVVURI (SC FOR APCPDCL) The Court made the following Order: The petitioners are challenging the notification dated 28.01.2012, whereby the respondents issued a notification for the recruitment of Junior Assistants. A direction from this Court is also sought for absorbing the petitioners into regular vacancies. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working as private collection agents and have been serving the respondents by undertaking high-risk work. Though the petitioners have been working for a considerable period of time, HN, J W.P.No.5508_2012 2 respondents 2 and 3 have issued a notification dated 28.01.2012, calling for applications for the recruitment of Junior Assistants. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the petitioners are already working as private collection agents and discharging their duties, there was no necessity for the respondents to issue a fresh notification. Alternatively, the respondents could have directly recruited or absorbed the petitioners into existing vacancies. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have been working under contractors 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 notification and that the job of private collection agents is outsourced to contractors who supply the required private collection agents 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 notification is concerned by the respondents, further orders on the issue of the challenge to the notifications need not be addressed by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners HN, J W.P.No.5508_2012 3 also fairly concedes that the petitioners are only concerned with regard to absorption into service. Insofar as 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 Assistants 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.5508_2012 4 388 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.5508 of 2012 Date: 08.01.2025 NKA