THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27593 of 2008 DATED:09.02.2009 Between: K. Srinivasa …..Petitioner AND The A.P. GENCO., represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and others ….Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27593 of 2008 ORDER: This is the third journey of the petitioner to this Court with regard to his appointment as Junior Plant Attendants on par with other contract labour working in the respondents-organization. The petitioner claims that he has been working as a contract labour in the respondents-organization from the year 1996. The respondents-organization issued notification for filling up the posts of Junior Plant Attendants. The petitioner is one of the applicants for the post of Junior Plant Attendants. When the respondents-organization issued a memo giving weightage to the persons working in a particular place, the petitioner questioned the same by filing W.P.No.3552 of 2000. The said writ petition came to be disposed of along with the batch of writ petitions setting aside the memo with regard to giving weightage of marks to the persons working in a particular place. The petitioner also filed Contempt Case i.e., C.C.No.982 of 2002. The said contempt case along with the batch of contempt case came to be disposed of directing the respondents organization to fill up the post of the Junior Plants Attendants and to consider the case of the petitioner for filling up the post of Junior Plant Attendant on par with the other eligible persons. The petitioner approached this Court with an allegation that the respondents are proceeding with the filling up the posts of Junior Plant Attendants without considering his case. Para 5 of the writ petition needs to be noted and it is thus:- “it is submitted that the petitioner herein had appeared for the interview for the post of Junior Plant Attandants along with similar situated candidates and has approached this Hon’ble Court by filing writ petition No. 3552 of 2000 and also contempt case No. 111/2002 and in pursuance to the court orders the petitioner had also submitted the certificates to the respondent organization and the petitioner is in fond hope that his case will be considered for appointment in the respondent organization as and when the recruitment is commenced. Recently the petitioners came to know that the respondents are going to recruit the candidates from the list prepared by the respondents after receiving the applications from the applied and eligible contract labour working in the respondent organization and the list is send to the Government for approval, that may be approved within short period and they are going to issue selection/appointment orders.” When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Standing Counsel of A.P.GENCO received notice on behalf of the respondents and filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that no recruitment for appointment to the Junior Plant Attendants is taken up and, therefore, there is no cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court. Para 4 of the counter- affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus:- “The allegations in para 4 and 5 of the petitioner’s affidavit are not true and correct. It is absolutely false to say that the respondents have selected the candidates who got less marks and put in less number of days service as contract labour and the other allegations are hereby denied. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.3552 of 2000 and the same was disposed of along with W.P.No.23439 of 1997 and batch on 06.09.2000 by formulating the guidelines with regard to limitation in extending the weightage marks. Some of the petitioners in those batch of writ petitions have filed C.C.No.111 of 2002 and this Hon’ble Court disposed of the same directing as and when the respondent corporation goes for direct recruitment to fill up the post of Junior Plant Attendants the cases of the petitioners will be considered as per eligibility. It is absolutely false to say that the respondents are going to recruit the candidates from the list prepared by the respondent after receiving the applications from the applied and eligible contract labour and the said list was sent to the Government for approval and it may be approved within short period etc., are not true and correct. The said allegations were invented for filing the above writ petition, when no such list is prepared by the respondent corporation the question of non inclusion of his name in the list does not arise. The petitioner filed the above writ petition with untenable and irrelevant contentions without any cause of action and on assumptions and presumptions.” When the writ petition came up for admission hearing, with the consent of the both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner on par with other similarly situated persons in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.3552 of 2000 and batch. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as on this day there is no proposal of recruitment for filling up the posts of Junior Plant Attendants and, therefore, there is no cause of action to the petitioner to approach this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have specifically stated in para 4 of the counter- affidavit that no recruitment process for appointment of Junior Plant Attendants has been initiated. If such is the situation, there is no cause of action to approach this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court as and when his case is discriminated in appointing to the post of Junior Plant Attendants. No order as to costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 9th February, 2009 bud