IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 555 of 2008 Between: T.J. Thirumalaiah S/. Venkataswamy Engineer (Operation) A.P.C.P.D.C.L. Kurnool. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Transco Rep. by its Joint Managing Director (HRD) Coml. IPC Ref.RA & IT) Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P. Central Power DIstribution Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chirman & Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Redhills, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) A.P. Central Power DIstribution Company Ltd., Kurnool, Kurnool District. .....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 order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in cancellation of the appointment orders of the petitioner vide Memo No. SE(O)KNL/PO/JAO/ADM/S3/D.No. 100/07 dt. 31-12-2007 as ilegal, arbitrary unfair labour ractice besides violative of the principles of Natural Justice and Violative of Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to restore the seniority of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e, 13-12-2007 in the cadre of L.D. Clerk and pay all incidental and consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Peeta Raman Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.Balarami Reddy(SC for AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Lineman in A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited. There is a provision for appointment by transfer to the post of L.D.C. from the category of Lineman. Through the order, dated 13.12.2007, the third respondent appointed the petitioner, on transfer, to the post of L.D.C. Apart from other conditions, it was stipulated that the petitioner must acquire a Diploma in Computer Applications (D.C.A.), which was prescribed as essential qualification, vide orders in C.O.O.CGM.(HRD).Ms.No.262, dated 23.07.2007. Hardly within a fortnight, the third respondent had cancelled the order of appointment, dated 13.12.2007. The only ground mentioned therein is that the condition requiring the petitioner to pass D.C.A. does not apply to him. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit opposing the claim of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed on transfer as L.D.C. on finding that he fulfills the requisite qualifications. Condition No.5 is to the effect that the petitioner must pass D.C.A. The basis for cancellation of the order of appointment is that the condition to pass D.C.A. would apply only to those candidates who were awaiting appointment as on 23.07.2007. On that premise, the order of appointment is cancelled. If the condition requiring the petitioner to pass D.C.A. does not apply to him, it is not known as to how the order of appointment itself suffers from any infirmity. From the counter- affidavit and the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, it is discerned that the reason for cancelling the order of appointment of the petitioner is that there are seniors to the petitioner in the category of Lineman. That, however, is not reflected in the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondents to take such action as they intend to, by issuing a notice to the petitioner, and indicating the reasons for their action. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}