IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8857 of 2008 Between: P.Srinivas S/o.P.Narasimha Reddy R/o.H.No.2-8-343,NGOs colony, Hanamkonda Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APTRANSCO, Vidyut soudha,Hyderabad rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director. 2 The Joint Managing Director, APTRANSCO Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief General Manager (HRD), AP TRANSCO Vidyut soudha, Hyderabad. 4 The Chief Engineer , APTRANSCO,TL&SS/Zone/Warangal Mulugu Road, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner and appointing him as Assistant Engineer by transfer on par with the similarly situated candidates even though he is eligible and entitled to be appointed as such as illegal, unjust arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles, 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer by transfer if necessary by giving notional seniority in the cadre of Sub-Engineer from the date of his initial appointment in the Respondent Corporation. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.R.Prabhakar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy (SC for AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. in the first respondent-company in the year 2003, on compassionate grounds, on account of the medical invalidation of his father. He submitted a representation, dated 30.01.2006, to the respondents with a request to appoint him as Assistant Engineer by way of transfer, since he holds the qualification of B.Tech (Computers). Initially, the second respondent, Joint Managing Director, rejected the request of the petitioner, vide proceedings, dated 27.06.2006. Thereafter, the fourth respondent, Chief Engineer, forwarded the application of the petitioner, dated 24.07.2007, to the third respondent, Chief General Manager, vide letter, dated 25.07.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is not able to cite any specific provision under which he claimed the relief. Be that as it may, an authority of the rank of Chief Engineer had forwarded the application of the petitioner to the third respondent. The question as to whether the application of the petitioner merits any consideration needs to be decided by the third respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent to pass orders on the application, dated 24.07.2007, forwarded by the fourth respondent vide letter, dated 25.07.2007, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:22.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}