APHC010212832004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 20398/2004 Between: 1. G. TRINADHA PITESESWARA RAO,, S/O. G. NAGA MALLESWARA RAO, EMPLOYEE, MALE, HINDU, RAYALAM (P.O), BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIR AP TRANSCO 3 ORS, A.P. TRANSCO, VIDYUTH SOUDHA, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR, EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. NEAR SARASWATHI PARK, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. NEAR SARASWATHI PARK, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ELECTRICAL, OPERATION, EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. NEAR GAJJALAVARI TANK, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declre teh action of respondents as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional in rejecting the petitioner's case for appointment to the post of L.D.C/Revenue Cashier by setting aside the impugned letter No.SE/O/ELR/Adm/F.CL.D.No.259/03, dt. 2-5-2003 and to direct the respondent to appoinment the petitioner as L.D.C./Revenue Cashier IA NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP 26693 OF 2004 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to reconsider the petitioner case for appoinmtne to the post of L.D.C./Revenue Cashier IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 27310 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to delete the CMD/APTRANSCO as Respondents from the WP No. 20398/2004 in the interest of justice and equity and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B P RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P LAKSHMA REDDY 2. P R BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.20398 of 2004 ORDER: Present writ petition has been filed questioning the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s request for appointment to the post of LDC/Revenue Cashier by impugned letter No.SE/O/ELR/Adm/F.CL/D.No.259/03, dated 29.05.2003, to be arbitrary and illegal. 2. Petitioner claims to be a contract worker working under the contractor, who was engaged by respondent corporation, and that he was attending to the works of supervision of contracts relating to transformers erection and laying of HT and LT Lines for the purpose of transmission and distribution corridors. Petitioner also stated to be eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of LDC/Revenue Cashier. Since there were certain vacancies available with the respondent corporation, he made application to the 4th respondent on 14.06.2003, enclosing the service certificate and his experience certificates. Despite the same, the 4th respondent has not considered his request, rather by impunged 2 CGR, J W.P. No.20398 of 2004 proceedings dated 29.05.2003, his request came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Petitioner has also filed W.P.M.P. No.26693/2004 pending the writ petition seeking interim directions to reconsider petitioner’s case for appointment. Even the said application also came to be dismissed by orders dated 09.06.2008. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner tried to advance arguments on the merits and entitlement of petitioner to claim appointment to the post of LDC/Revenue Cashier. 5. Learned counsel for respondent corporation, on the other hand, submitted that since petitioner was aged 38 years as on the date of filing of writ petition and that he would now be 59 years, due to passage of time, his request for appointment can no longer be considered and the matter would render infructuous. 6. Having considered aforesaid submissions, that the petitioner has now crossed the age for claiming any appointment in the corporation, and that since no right has been established for claiming such appointment, this court is not inclined to show indulgence at this length of time. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 3 CGR, J W.P. No.20398 of 2004 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 30.10.2025 SS