IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 15122 of 2008 Between: P.G. Ramesh Babu, S/o. P.G. Reddappa Reddy, R/o. 20-1-416/16D, Subash Nagar, Tirupati Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman and Managing Director AP Transco, Vidyutsoudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Chairman and Managing Director Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. Thirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Chief Engineer (Operations), Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. Korlagunta, Thirupathi, Chittoor District. 4 The Superintending Engineer Operations, Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. Thirupathi, Chittoor 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not disposing of the representation dt. 28-5-2008 made by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary unjust and violative of article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the respondents corporation and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.ALLABAKASH Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.No.25943 of 1997 with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider his case in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner. The petitioner states that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, he was issued a call letter, dated 06.04.1998, and was interviewed on 10.04.1998. His grievance is that the results of the interview were not declared and communicated to him so far, though he has made representations from time to time. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is doubtful as to whether the respondents are in possession of the record relating to the interview of the petitioner said to have been conducted on 10.04.1998. Be that as it may, the petitioner has to be given a reply one-way or the other. In case the record is available, the result of the interview may be informed and if the record is not available, the said fact has to be communicated to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to communicate the petitioner the information referred to above, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 15.07.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}