Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 45808 (AP)

N. Madhu v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited,

WP/3594/2012 · 2025-02-13

Harinath N

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGHCOURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.3594 of 2012 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 09. 17.02.2026 HN,J I.A.No.2 of 2025 (Review Petition) In W.P.No.3594 of 2012 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed this review petition seeking to review the order of this Court dated 14.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.3594 of 2012. The petitioner has challenged the issue relating to the filling up of backlog vacancies of Junior Linemen in various operations circles, including Kadapa, contending that the grant of weightage marks up to 45 marks to in-service contract workers and that the same would ignore the experience and qualification of the petitioners. A Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Appeal No.110 of 2014, modified the extent of weightage marks by reducing the same and limiting the extension to 20 marks for in- service candidates. As such, the disposal of the writ petition was in accordance with the subsequent orders passed in Writ Appeal No.110 of 2014, whereby the extension of 45 marks as weightage for in-service was reduced to 20 marks. The other contentions raised in this review petition, seeking further reliefs, are beyond the scope of a review petition. The scope of the review is very limited, and the petitioner must point out an error apparent on the face of the order for the Court to consider the review petition. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners also states that the petitioners are not aware of the fate of the examination that was conducted. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents has already submitted that the recruitment process has been completed in all respects and that, except the 6th petitioner, none of the other petitioners are in service of the respondents. Be that as it may, insofar as the consideration of the review petition is concerned, no valid grounds have been made out. Accordingly, the review petition (I.A.No.2 of 2025) is closed. _____ HN, J NKA