THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION Nos.9109, 9165 and 9622 of 2010 Dated : 13.09.2010 Between : Mr.Rajput Ramulu & others … Petitioners a n d The Government of Andhra Pradesh & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION Nos.9109, 9165 and 9622 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) These three Writ Petitions in the form of public interest litigation are filed seeking to cancel the entire selection process pursuant to the notifications dated 06.06.2006 and 20.10.2006 and for a further direction to the respondents to issue a new notification for recruitment of junior linemen and also for initiation of civil and criminal proceedings against the authorities concerned. All the three petitioners applied for the post notified pursuant to the notifications dated 06.08.2006 and 20.10.2006, but could not be selected for the same. Hence, filed the present Writ Petitions for the above said reliefs. While dealing with Writ Appeal Nos.1434 of 2009 & batch filed against the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.19051 of 2008 & batch dated 02.05.2008, which were filed against the subject matter of litigation, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order: “ It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the individual written undertaking, which reads thus: “Now without admitting the claim of the petitioners and without going into details of correctness or otherwise of the said recruitment process, the Company is ready to absorb and select the Writ Petitioners who are affected due to the Clause 6(4) (C) of Revised Notification, dated 20.10.2006”. Therefore, taking the aforesaid undertakings of the Appellant-Distribution Companies on record, we direct the Appellant-Companies to appoint all the respondents/Writ Petitioners, who submitted their applications pursuant to the notifications dated 08.06.2006 and the other dates, issued by the various appellant companies, and who have passed the pole climbing test and fulfilled the other eligibility criterion for appointment as Junior Linemen, without reference to and without insisting upon the fulfillment of Condition No.6 (iv)(c) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We also make it clear that this direction would be applicable to all those candidates, who have not approached this Court but who had applied in pursuance of the aforementioned notifications, subject to passing of the pole climbing test and fulfillment of eligibility criteria. We however make it clear that the persons who have not applied in pursuance of the notifications dated 8.6.2006 and the other dates and who have not subjected themselves to the selection process have no right whatsoever to claim that they are entitled for such appointment. We also make it clear that all the selected and appointed respondents-Writ Petitioners and others similarly situated would be entitled for all benefits on par with the persons who have been appointed as Junior Linemen as per Condition No.6 (iv)(c) of the revised notification, including regularization of their services as per rules and policy. The writ appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.” Basing on the undertaking given by the employer, who issued the impugned notifications, the Division Bench of this Court passed the abovesaid order without going into the merits of the case. In the said order, it is clearly held that the directions would be applicable to all those candidates, who have not approached this Court, but who have applied in pursuance of the aforementioned notification, subject to passing of the pole climbing test and fulfillment of eligibility criteria. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on maintainability of the Writ Petitions since this Court has already settled the issue in Writ Appeal Nos.1434 of 2009 & batch as stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to refer the matter to Full Bench by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand[1] wherein it was held that: “84. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer [(2003) 5 SCC 448], the Court elaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that earlier judgment by a larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle of per incuriam and the only course open to the co-ordinate or smaller Bench is to make a request for reference to the larger Bench.” He also relied on the judgment reported in U.P.Gram Panchayat Adhikar Sangh v Daya Ram Saroj[2] wherein the Supreme Court held as under: “26. Judicial discipline is self-discipline. It is an inbuilt mechanism in the system itself. Judicial discipline demands that when the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the notice of the Bench, it is to be respected and is binding, subject of course, to the right to take a different view or to doubt the correctness of the decision and the permissible course then open is to refer the question or case to a larger Bench. This is the minimum discipline and decorum to be maintained by judicial fraternity. We do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The benefit of the judgment rendered in Writ Appeal Nos.1434 of 2009 & batch is applicable to the petitioners herein also, though they have not approached this Court earlier, in view of the specific direction given by the Division Bench. Once this Court gave quietus to the litigation with certain directions and the selection has already been completed pursuant to the directions of this Court, the same cannot be the subject matter of another Writ Petition as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Naresh v. State of Maharastra[3] wherein it was held that when the impugned order passed by the superior Court of the Record in exercise of its inherent powers, the question about the existence of the said jurisdiction as well as the validity or propriety of the order cannot be raised in writ proceedings taken out by the petitioners for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the only remedy available to the petitioners is by way of appeal against the judgment of this Court passed in the Writ Appeal. The present Writ Petitions in the form of public interest litigation also cannot be entertained for the reason that the petitioners having appeared for the selection process and having not been selected, filed these writ petitions challenging issuance of notification, which they cannot do so. Further, it is also to be noted that selection of 1700 candidates pursuant to the present notification has been finalized and confirmed in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1434 of 2009 & batch. Therefore, the notifications and selection cannot be interfered in the absence of the selected candidates. Therefore, all the three Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ___________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 13th September, 2010 sur [1] (2008) 10 SCC 1 [2] (2007) 2 SCC 138 [3] AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1