IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1643 of 2006 Between: 1 The APGENCO Diploma Engineers Association (Regd.No.H48), affiliated to A.P.Power Generating Employees Union- Regd No.1535, Rep by its President, A.Venkateswarlu, S/o.A.Chennaiah. Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, VV.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 P.V.Subba Reddy, S/o.P.Ranga Reddy, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, VV.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 B.V.Subba Reddy, S/o.B.Nagulaiah, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, VV.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 4 S.V.Subbachari, S/o.Subrahmanyachari, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, VV.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 5 A.Sreeram Simha, S/o.Raghavendrachari, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, VV.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 6 G.Dasaradha Ramaiah, S/o.G.P.Seshaiah, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, VV.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 7 C.Venkata Subbaiah, S/o.C.Rama Subbaiah, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, VV.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 8 G.Ravi Prasad, S/o.K.G.Chinna Ramanna, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, VV.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 9 V.Radhakrishnam Raju, S/o.V.Subba Rama Raju, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, VV.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 10 S.Shirajuddin, S/o.Madarsaheb, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, VV.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The APGENCO, Rep by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief General Manager (Admn), APGENCO, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in making appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer by appointment by transfer by denying and depriving the petitioners the consideration for the same category of post inspite of directions of this Hon'ble Court madein W.P.No.27819/2005, dated.28-12-2005 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the G.O.No.305/CGM(Admn)/2005, dated.7-11- 2005 wherein the ratio fixed in favour of the petitioners and other Diploma Sub-Engineers for appointment by transfer to the post of AAes in the category of AEs and further direct the respondents to fill up the post of AAes in the category of AEs as per ratio prescribed in G.O.O.No.300/CGM(Admn)/2005, dated.7-11-2005 by also setting aside the impugned proceedings issued in G.O.O.No.381/CGM(Admn)/2005, dated.29-12-2005 and consequential Memo.No.CGM(A)/DS(A)/AS(R&V)/PO-A/A1/2004, dated.6-1-2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent and G.O.O.No.407/CGM(Admn)/2005, dated.12-1-2006, G.O.O.No.408/CGM(Admn)/2005 dated.12-1-2006 and G.O.O.No.409/CGM(Admn)/2005, dated.12-1-2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1643 of 2006 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is an Association of Diploma Engineers. Petitioners 2 to 10 were initially appointed as Contract Labour and later on, they were absorbed as Sub- Engineers, since they possessed Diploma in Engineering. They are continuing in the said posts. In the set up of the erstwhile Electricity Board as well as its successor, the A.P.GENCO, 1st respondent herein, the posts of Assistant Engineers (A.Es.) and Additional Assistant Engineers (A.A.Es.), in the branches of Civil, Mechanical and Telecommunication, are included in the same category, but the method of recruitment is different. While Graduation in Engineering is the qualification for the posts of A.Es., the persons possessing Diploma in Engineering are entitled to be employed as A.A.Es. Over the period, the duties to be discharged by the incumbents of both the posts were found to be somewhat similar. Therefore, the Diploma holders insisted on maintenance of ratio, whenever appointments are made to the said posts. At one stage, the matter was entrusted to study by the Administrative Staff College and on the basis of its recommendations, an order was issued, which is to the effect that whenever direct recruitment of Graduate Engineers takes place for 3 posts of A.Es., appointment to 2 posts of A.A.Es. must take place by transfer from among the Diploma holders. However, the said order was cancelled on the same day. The 1st petitioner filed W.P.No.27819 of 2005 challenging the order of cancellation and it was disposed of by this Court on 28.12.2005, refusing to interfere with the same. However, a direction was issued to the effect that the respondents shall finalize the issue before any further appointments are made. Apart from repeating the prayer made in the earlier writ petition, the petitioners assail the appointments made by the 1st respondent to the posts of A.Es., by way of transfer. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The first limb of the prayer in the writ petition is as to the action of the respondents in violation of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.27819 of 2005. The same cannot be entertained, since the petitioners have to work out their remedies in a different manner. So far as the challenge made to the posts of A.Es., by transfer is concerned, the petitioners are not able to point out any specific rule, which is said to have been violated. The thrust of the petitioners is upon the ratio to be maintained between the Graduate Engineers, on the one hand, and the Diploma Engineers, on the other. As of now, no rule has been framed, nor any existing rule is amended. Unless any specific violation of provisions of law is complained of, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 25.06.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1643 of 2006 Date: 25.06.2008 JSU