Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43090 (AP)

M RAMESHA v. SOUTHERN

WP/9751/2021 · 2025-12-30

Kiranmayee Mandava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010171492021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 9751/2021 ORDER:- Heard Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as Junior Lineman. 3. It is contended that the petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent seeking age relaxation for appointment as a Junior Linemen on contractual basis. It is stated that the petitioner’s case was rejected on the ground that he had crossed the prescribed upper age limit of 35 years as on the date of consideration. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed W.P. No.10853 of 2007 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with the following observation: “Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider for granting relaxation of age, for the purpose of reckoning upper age limit, to the extent of the period of service rendered by the petitioners in the organization and 2 they shall be appointed as Contract Junior Linemen, if they satisfy the other criteria, either in the existing or future vacancies (as soon as the one year period of contract as per the notifications is elapsed). It is made clear that except the age relaxation, the petitioners are not entitled for any other concessions.” 4. Pursuant to the above order of this Court, the petitioner appears to have submitted a representation. However, no orders were passed on the said representation. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 04.03.2017, wherein a decision was taken to consider the cases of over-aged contract labour whose applications were rejected solely on the ground of age, though they were otherwise eligible as per the notification. Relying upon the said proceedings dated 04.03.2017, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition in the year 2021 seeking similar benefits. 6. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner, aggrieved by the rejection order dated 07.07.2007, had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. No.10853 of 2007, which was disposed of on 10.12.2007 with a direction to consider granting age relaxation. It is further stated that the rejection was not only on the ground of over-age but also because the petitioner failed to furnish a service certificate in the prescribed format duly countersigned by the Deputy Engineer. It is further stated that in pursuance to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.10853 of 2007, the petitioner submitted an application along with the prescribed service certificate only after a lapse of ten years, i.e., in the year 2017. 3 7. Considered the rival submissions. 8. The case of the petitioner was initially rejected in 2007, on the ground that he was over-aged. The instant Writ Petition filed in 2021, the petitioner crossed the age of 50 years. The petitioner placing reliance in the circular memo dated 04.03.2017, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner having regard to the fact that his case was rejected not only on the ground that he was over aged but also having regard to the fact that he did not submit the service certificate in the prescribed format, apart from the same, having regard to the age of the petitioner as on the date of filing of the writ petition, the relief sought by the petitioner for appointment as Junior Lineman would not merit consideration having regard to the nature of duties attached to the post of Junior Linemen. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:31.12.2025 MVK 4 242 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.9751 of 2021 Date:31.12.2025 MVK