IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1573 of 2009 Between: Jadala Bhuraju S/o.Thirupathaiah, in the Office of the Divisional Engineer,M&P Division APSPDCL, Ongole, Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., Opration circle, Ongole, Prakasam Distri 2 The Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL, M&P Division Ongole, Prakasam 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 may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the impugned proceedings in Memo No.SE/O/OGL/ADM/PO/GAO/D.No.44/2009 dated 30.1.2009 issued by the 1st respondent in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner by way of transfer as Sub Engineer in M&P Division, Ongole as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequentially to set aside the same with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.ANANDA RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner joined in the respondents Corporation as Helper in the year 1986 and subsequently, promoted as Tester (Grade-II) in 1987; Tester (Grade-I) in 1993; Foreman (Gr.II) in 2002 and Foreman (Grade-I) in 2004. He was appointed as Sub-Engineer by transfer under the proceedings dated 01.12.2008. He joined in the post of Sub-Engineer on 04.12.2008. Subsequently, the Superintending Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Operation Circle, Ongole-1st respondent issued proceedings dated 30.01.2009 vide Memo.No.SE/O/OGL/ADM/ PO/GAO/D.No.44/2009, canceling the conversion order. The petitioner filed this writ petition assailing the proceedings dated 30.01.2009 issued by the 1st respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the proceedings appointing him as Sub-Engineer by transfer from the post of Foreman (Grade-I) came to be cancelled without putting him on notice. 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 02.02.2009. An interim order also came to be passed on the even date vide WPMP No.1992 of 2009. 3. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. They also moved WVMP No.367 of 2009 with a prayer to vacate the interim order granted on 02.02.2009. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has been relieved from the post of Sub-Engineer with a direction to report for duty as Foreman (Grade-I) on 30.01.2009. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that there is no provision for considering for appointment by transfer from the post of Foreman (Grade-I) to the post of Sub-Engineer in the Regulations. After noticing the mistake in the proceedings issued promoting the petitioner as Sub- Engineer from the post of Foreman (Grade-I) by transfer, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition came to be issued. 4. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceedings impugned in the writ petition came to be issued without putting the petitioner on notice. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no provision in the Service Regulations for promotion from the post of Foreman (Grade-I) to the post of Sub-Engineer and therefore, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition cannot be faulted. 8. The fact that the proceedings impugned in the writ petition canceling the earlier proceedings came to be issued without putting the petitioner on notice is not contradicted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to treat the proceedings impugned in the writ petition as show-cause so as to enable the petitioner to submit his explanation. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of treating the proceedings impugned in the writ petition as show-cause notice enabling the petitioner to submit his explanation within a week and thereafter the respondent shall consider the said explanation and pass appropriate orders. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:03rd March, 2009. Note: Issue C.C. within two days. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}