THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITIONS NO.4510, 5993 & 5994 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Though WP No.4510 of 2011 is not listed today, Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested that the said writ petition may also be tagged on with the other two writ petitions, which are listed and be heard, as common questions do arise in all the three cases. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has no objection for such a course to be adopted by this Court. Hence, the WP No.4510 of 2011 is also called for and heard along with these two writ petitions. The petitioner in WP No.5993 of 2011 worked earlier as Technical Work Inspector on Nominal Muster Roll of the respondent- Corporation. However, the respondent-Corporation pursuant to the policy decision taken by it, issued a circular on 8.9.1995 to retrench some of the surplus employees. That led to institution of W.P.No.16894 of 1995 followed by WA No.897 of 1995. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment, dated 28.8.1995 directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh as well as the respondent-Corporation to ensure alternative employment to the petitioners therein. Then, the Corporation moved an application on 26.11.1997 in terms of Section 25(N) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking permission to retrench 528 employees. Ultimately, the competent authority /the specified authority granted permission for retrenchment of 520 employees on 19.3.1998. Pursuant to the said permission accorded, the petitioners were retrenched on 25-7-1998 duly paying their salaries and allowances upto 31-7-1998. Thus, the petitioners herein are the retrenched employees of the Corporation. The difference among them being that the petitioner in W.P.No.5994 of 2011 worked in different spells as technical Work Inspector and also as Assistant Engineer whereas the petitioners in WP Nos.5993 of 2011 and 4510 of 2011 worked as Technical Work Inspectors. The respondent-Corporation has issued a detailed employment notification No.1 of 2011 inviting applications from suitable candidates upto 26th February, 2011 proposing to recruit 9 Assistant Executive Engineers, 8 Assistant Engineers and 3 Technical Assistants from the open market. The claim of the petitioners is that since they are retrenched employees of the respondent-corporation a preferential right should have been accorded to them in the matter of recruitment. It will be relevant to note that Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act makes it clear that where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employment, any persons, such employer shall give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons. In view of this legal principle and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in WA No.897 of 1995, it is only proper for the respondent-Corporation to entertain the applications of the petitioners herein for recruitment as Technical Work Inspector/Assistant Engineer, as the case may be. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the earlier post of Technical Work Inspector has since been re-designated as a Technical Assistant and since the present notification seeks to offer employment for 8 Assistant Engineers and 3 Technical Assistants, it should necessarily be carried out in conformity with the principle enunciated by Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the petitioners herein are interested in offering themselves for recruitment, it is therefore appropriate for the respondent-Corporation to take into account and consideration the qualifications possessed by the petitioners and if they match the present requirement of qualifications, their candidature should be considered on preferential basis to those candidates who are to be drawn from the open market. It is needless to observe that since the petitioners herein are the retrenched employees the upper age limit restriction will not be applicable to their cases. The writ petitions stand disposed of with this order. No costs. ____________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 30.3.2011 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITIONS NO.4510, 5993 & 5994 of 2011 30.3.2011