Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Apspdcl., Tirupati, Chittoor Dist., 2 ... vs B. Ramesh Babu, Chittoor Dist. on 30 December, 2020
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J K Maheshwari
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
CHIEF JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
AND
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.1038 of 2017
(Through Video Conferencing)
Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P.
Ltd., rep. by its Chairman & Managing
Director, Tirupati, Chittoor District, and others ... Appellants
Versus
B.Ramesh Babu, S/o.Krishna Murthy ... Respondent
Counsel for the appellants : Y.Nagi Reddy
Counsel for the respondent : V.R.Reddy Kovvuri
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:30.12.2020 Per J.K. Maheshwari, CJ This appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, arises out of the order dated 14.02.2017 passed in W.P.No.9292 of 2008, whereby the learned single Judge recorded finding in paragraph 7 regarding valid certificate and in paragraph 8 observed that the policy B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 has not been withdrawn, referring to the Division Bench judgment of the composite High Court in W.A.No.260 of 2010. The learned single Judge further distinguished, in fact, on the issue of the direction as issued in the said writ appeal, wherein B.P.Ms.No.36 of 1997 was relied upon, because as per the finding recorded in paragraph 7, the name of the respondent/writ petitioner was found in the select list, while in the said case, there was dispute on account of non-issuance of the certificate by the competent authority; however, consequently directed the appellants/respondents to issue orders 2 HCJ & LKJ W.A.No.1038 of 2017 of appointment/regularization in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner as per the select list published and displayed on the notice board in May, 2004.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 has already been withdrawn; in that view of the matter, the policy of regularization was not in vogue, therefore, the direction as issued by the learned single Judge is not permissible. In addition to the aforesaid, it is urged that there is dispute regarding the issuance of the certificate as raised in the return filed by them, but the said issue has not been elaborately dealt in paragraph 7 by the learned single Judge.
3. We do not find any substance in the said argument; in particular, looking to the fact that the defence as taken was based on withdrawal of the policy B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the finding recorded in W.A.No.260 of 2010 with respect to the acceptance of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997, it is clear that the said policy has not been withdrawn and the court has issued direction in the said writ appeal relying upon the said policy. Therefore, the contention as advanced by Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, standing counsel for the appellants, is not acceptable.
4. In view of the foregoing and in view of the fact that the name of the respondent/writ petitioner was already in the select list as discussed in paragraph 10 of the order of the learned single Judge; in the considered opinion of this Court, the finding 3 HCJ & LKJ W.A.No.1038 of 2017 as recorded by the single Judge do not warrant any interference in this intra-court appeal.
5. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.
J.K. MAHESHWARI, CJ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J MRR