IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5716 OF 2005 Between: G. Srinivas. - - - PETITIONER. AND The Chairperson & Managing Director, A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. - - - RESPONDENT. This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.5716 OF 2005 O R D E R: Heard Sri S. Ravindranath, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Respondent- Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Limited. The writ petitioner questions the validity of the orders contained in TOO (Additional Secretary-IR) Ms. No.212, dated 10-01-2005, issued by the respondent’s corporation. It is to be noticed that through the impugned TOO Ms. No.212, the respondent corporation has constituted a committee of three members compromising of the Executive Director (Accounts), Chief General Manager (HRD & Training) and the Additional Secretary of the corporation for the purpose of examining the issue relating to filling up of 50% of the vacancies in terms of the policy decision contained in B.P. (P & G-per) Ms. No.36, dated 18-05-1997. The said committee was required to submit its report to the respondent corporation for taking appropriate decision in the matter. Paragraph 4 of the TOO Ms. No.212, is the offending portion according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, which reads as follows : “The Board of A.P. Transco directs that no further recruitment shall be made until further orders from A.P. Transco.” The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB), the composite and monopolistic organization, which upon bifurcation has lead to the formation of A.P. Transmission Corporation, respondent herein and A.P. Generation Corporation, has framed a policy decision and announced the same through their B.P. (P & G-per) Ms. No.36, dated 18-05-1997, with a view to give effect to the terms and conditions contained in the agreements entered by the said APSEB with the three recognized unions of employees/workers. It was agreed by the APSEB to fill up 50% of the existing vacancies in the initial recruitment cadres by considering the case of ex-casual labour and also village electricity workers and contract labour. It is therefore manifestly clear that the respondent corporation is under an obligation to comply with the scheme formulated by the APSEB and announced through B.P. (P & G-per) Ms. No.36, dated 18-05-1197, for achieving the said objective only the respondent corporation has constituted a three member committee through TOO Ms. No.212. Therefore, I do not find any justification for quashing the said TOO Ms. No.212, for constituting the said committee in principle. The constitution of committee is purely an administrative exercise indulged in by the respondent Corporation. Apprehending the said corporation to discharge its obligations arising out of the policy announced through B.P. (P & G-per) Ms. No.36, dated 18-05-1197, such an exercise being inherent to the administrative necessities of the corporation, it cannot be faulted. But, however the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is perhaps justified in his criticism of a blanket upon himself in paragraph 4 of TOO Ms. No.212, dated 10-01-2005, which has been noticed supra, the respondent corporation being the creature of the statue, could not have taken a policy decision not to make recruitments at all notwithstanding the requirement to make such a recruitment by rendering its services. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned standing counsel for the respondent therefore clarifies the situation by pointing out with the point now admitted by TOO Ms. No.212 is only a step in aid to give effect to the policy decision contained in B.P. (P & G-per) Ms. No.36 and till the same is accomplished, the respondent corporation never wanted to have additional problem of not to deal with indiscriminate or improper recruitments being made by various appointing authorities under its control. The corporation never intended to open the process of recruitment by the method of direct recruitment from the open market or by way of granting permission to the eligible in-service employees against available vacancies. After all if the respondent corporation were to run its services and that too with the necessary degree of efficiency, which undoubtedly requires manpower’s support, without making recruitment of such manpower, the respondent corporation cannot carry on its show. Therefore, though any employee in the above quoted paragraph No.4 of the TOO Ms. No.212 might have given scope for certain apprehensions in the minds of unemployed young people who are aspirants for employment in the respondent corporation, but nonetheless, the clarity offered by the learned counsel for the respondent appears to be the true intention of the respondent corporation and hence, I clarify that the point sought to be imposed on direct recruitment through TOO Ms. No.212 is only a temporary or adapt measure and it is bound to be reviewed as and when the requirement for making recruitment of manpower is essentially needed by the respondent corporation. Learned standing counsel informs at the Bar, that this part of the decision contained in TOO Ms. No.212 has in fact been reviewed and subsequently direct recruitment has also been resorted. Therefore, I do not see any justification for granting the relief prayed for, in this writ petition, in its terms and hence the writ petition is dismissed, however, without costs. __________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. September 30, 2010. Dsh.