IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.22269 AND 31408 of 2011 Between: W.P.No.22269 of 2011 Yeleri Rajesh … Petitioner and Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited And others. … Respondents W.P.No.31408 of 2011 Vanapalli Veer Raju … Petitioner And Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited And others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.22269 AND 31408 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: W.P. No.22269 of 2011 has been filed questioning the proceedings dated 01.08.2011, wherein the petitioner was terminated from the service of Trainee Assistant Engineer (Elecl). Whereas, W.P. No. 31408 of 2011 has been filed questioning the Memo dated 09.08.2011, wherein kept the petitioner in abeyance until further orders, to which post he was selected is consequent to the post claimed by the petitioner in W.P. No.22259 of 2011. That is how both the matters are connected with each other. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. W.P. No.22269 of 2011 has been filed by one Yeleri Rajesh, who is resident of Vadisaleru Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District having qualified in B.Tech (Electrical) from JNTU, Kakinada. Pursuant to the notification dated 13.05.2011, issued by the 1st respondent, Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on regular basis under open category. There were seven vacancies meant for O.Cs. Consequent to his application, he was allowed for written examination on 03.10.2010. While so, order dated 27.10.2010 was issued by the 1st respondent appointing the petitioner as Trainee Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the time scale of pay of Rs.23,115-35720 and was placed on training cum probation for a period of two years, during which period, he was paid minimum of the pay along with admissible allowances. He has been on the training cum probation since 08.12.2010. While the things stood thus, he was called by the 4th respondent, Divisional Engineer (OP), on 02.08.2011 and was served with the order dated 01.08.2011, terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect on the alleged ground that certain discrepancy has crept in the recruitment of Assistant Engineers and decided to correct the same. Questioning the said termination order, the petitioner filed the W.P. No. 22269 of 2011. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the APEPDCL following the rule of reservation as specified in Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, which were adopted by the then Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and the successor units including the APEPDCL and as per the rule of reservation, the vacancies belonging to O.C. category will be filled up at the first instance, thereafter, the reserved category including backlog vacancies. However, the discrepancy arises due to filling up of backlog vacancies clubbing with general recruitment. Subsequently, a representation was received from one of the candidates belonging to BC-D that the rule of reservation was not properly followed and meritorious reserved candidate was not treated against O.C. vacancy, thereby he is deprived of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). On his representation, the selection and appointments made were reviewed. During the review, it was found that there are seven vacancies available against O.C. (General). The petitioner secured 70 marks. However, while fixing up the vacancies among the roster point, inadvertently one N.S.Prasad kadali, who belongs to BC-B, secured 72 marks was taken into BC-B roster point at Sl.No.160 (backlog) as he is meritorious BC candidate also instead of against O.C. slot. Thereby, one BC-B candidate was deprived of an opportunity. Since the error has crept-in, an opinion was also sought from the A.P. Transco, with regard to the recruitment of the Assistant Engineers by following the rule of reservation. After obtaining the report from the A.P. Transco, the matter was placed before the Board of Directors and in their 69th meeting held on 26.07.2011 decided to correct the discrepancy which has crept in recruitment of Assistant Engineers and resolved to removal of Sri Yeleri Rajesh, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.22269 of 2011, was issued with the order termination dated 01.08.2011. Simultaneously, one Sri Vanapalli Veer Raju, who is petitioner in W.P. No.31408, was issued with appointment order dated 01.08.2011. Eventually, it is submitted that the proceedings of the Board and consequential termination orders are strictly in accordance with the implementation of rule of reservation and only to rectify the anomaly, which has crept in the recruitment of Assistant Engineers 2010. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Further, it is also submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 05.08.2011 in W.P. No.22269 of 2011, directing to continue the petitioner as Assistant Engineer even if he is relieved from service, proceedings in memo dated 09.08.2011 was issued keeping the termination orders issued in favour of the petitioner in abeyance subject to the outcome of the W.P. No.22269 of 2011 and consequential appointment order issued in favour of Sri V.Veera Raju, petitioner in W.P. No.31408, vide proceedings dated 01.08.2011 were also kept in abeyance until further orders. Questioning the impugned order dated 09.08.2011, the petitioner, Vanapalli Veer Raju, filed W.P. No.31408 of 2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.22269 of 2011 would contend that the petitioner therein has been appointed by following the rules and the selection process and he has been issued appointment order, pursuant to which he reported for duty and undergone for training. While so, suddenly, he was called by the 4th respondent and furnished the copy of the order of termination. Therefore, the order of termination is behind back of the petitioner and without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Therefore, it is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the petitioner has been appointed against the substantial post, which was notified by way of direct recruitment and once the petitioner has been appointed against the post, he is entitled to continue and his right of appointment into service cannot be taken away without offering any opportunity to him asking as to why his appointment shall not be cancelled with sufficient reasons. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, besides reiterating the counter averments noted hereinabove, would submit that in Clause 3 of the appointment order categorically mentioned that the appointment as Trainee Assistant Engineer (Electrical) is provisional and liable for termination at any time without notice and without assigning any reasons. Therefore, necessarily the petitioner in W.P. No.22269 of 2011 is not required to issue any notice. He further submitted that the authorities wanted to rectify the mistake crept in the process of selection and in that process only the services of the petitioner was terminated but pursuant to the interim direction passed by this Court, the petitioner is allowed to continue. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, the point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order in W.P. No.22269 of 2011 is sustainable? As could be seen from the termination order dated 01.08.2011, it is obvious that the petitioner is not made known as to why his appointment has been cancelled. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner secured only 70 marks and the meritorious candidate to that of the petitioner has not been given appointment order. Therefore, the petitioner could not be recruited against the post meant for O.C., candidate and this reasoning is only by way of counter in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before passing termination order of the petitioner, the petitioner was not given any opportunity by way of issuing any show cause notice, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Having regard to various facts and circumstances stated in the affidavit and in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary to go into the details of the case for considering the validity of the impugned termination order but however, it suffice to say that when the petitioner was appointed against the substantial post and he reported for duty and later on that appointment order has been taken away by way of issuing order of termination, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, stating certain reasons and in the counter affidavit some other reasons have come into existence, which are not known to the petitioner, is nothing but in violation of principles of natural justice. Thereby, the petitioner is deprived of his right of knowing the reason for which he is not entitled to continue pursuant to the appointment order issued in his favour. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned termination order dated 01.08.2011 is in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner is not given any notice of termination as to why he shall not be terminated. On this very limited ground, the impugned order dated 01.08.2011 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. But, however, this order does not preclude the authorities from taking appropriate action, in accordance with law, duly issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. Accordingly, W.P. No. 22269 of 2011 is disposed of. As far as the W.P. No.31408 of 2011 is concerned, the relief sought for is only consequential one to that of the interim relief granted by this Court in W.P. No.22269 of 2011. The petitioner in W.P. No. 31408 of 2011 was appointed consequent to termination of the petitioner in W.P. No.22269 of 2011. As this Court by interim order dated 05.08.2011 directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in W.P. No.22269 of 2011, the respondents have issued impugned order dated 09.08.2011, keeping the petitioner in W.P. No.31408 of 2011 in abeyance. Therefore, his grievance will also be decided by the authorities while considering the case of the petitioner in W.P. No.22269 of 2011. Accordingly, with the above direction, these two writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 14.12.2011 LSK