IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No: 314 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17.12.2008 in Rev. WPMP (SR) No: 98060 of 2008 on the file of the High Court.) BETWEEN: 1 The Superintending Engineer, TL & SS Circle, AP Transco, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Dist. 2 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, TL & SS Division, A.P. Transco, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Chief Engineer, TL & SS Division, A.P. Transco, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Chief Managing Director, A.P. Transco, vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad District. ... APPELLANTS AND K.Nagaraju S/o. late Ramana, R/o.H.No.220 K.B. Sub-Station, Q.No.E3, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.N.M.KRISHNAIAH The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) The appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the application for review being Rev.WPMP (SR).No.98060 of 2009 by the impugned order dated 17.12.2008. 2. The respondent herein filed WP.No.8929 of 2007 questioning the impugned memo dated 03.04.2007 reverting the respondent from the post of Junior Lineman to the original post of Watchman on the ground that he does not have ITI qualification, which was essential under the Rules existing. While the said writ petition was allowed by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2007, the first appellant herein filed Rev.WPMP (SR) No.98060 of 2008 seeking review of the said order on the ground that even prior to the appointment of the respondent to the said post, the requirement of ITI qualification was essential. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition and questioning the same the present appeal is filed. 3. This Court while ordering notice on 04.03.2009 had granted interim suspension for a period of four weeks. We have now heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. During the hearing, it has been brought to our notice that the said issue was negotiated between the unions representing the employees and management of A.P. Transco and that the AP Transco issued an abstract memo bearing No. T.O.O. (Addl.Secy. – Per) Ms.No.226 dated 17.12.2008. The relevant clause 6 of the said abstract is extracted hereunder: “6. On the request of the Unions representing the Employees to consider the relaxation of condition of mandatory requirement of I.T.I qualification, and during the discussions held with them, the Management of A.P. Transco has agreed to relax requirement of I.T.I qualification for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman under compassionate appointment.” 5. In view of the said agreement between the Management and the Unions representing the Employees, the management has agreed to relax the qualification of I.T.I for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman under compassionate appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the case of the respondent herein would be squarely covered by the said clause 6 relaxation agreed to. He further submits that if the respondent applies for the benefit of the aforesaid clause 6, the appellants would consider his case in accordance with the abstract memo referred to above. 7. In view of the above, no adjudication is necessary in this appeal except for reiterating and permitting the respondent to make an application to the appellants for grant of relaxation in terms of the abstract memo referred to above and on such an application being made, the appellants shall apply clause 6, extracted above, of the said abstract memo and consider the case of the respondent and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the subsequent developments, the order of the learned Single Judge is modified accordingly to the extent indicated above. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 1, 2009 DSK