The respondents are the Ex casual Labourers, who were engaged in the different circles of the A.P. State Electricity Board and had rendered service in the past.
In this view of the matter the Writ Petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents to companysider the cases of the writ petitioners for absorption in terms of memorandum dated 26.08.1985 without taking into account the restrictions imposed in memorandum dated 18.05.1997 providing quota of 50 therein.
Moreover, the cases of the respondents had to be companysidered on the date when they acquired the right, and number on any subsequent date.
The appellant Board by its memorandum dated 26.08.1985 took a decision that the vacant posts of L.D.Cs.
They, therefore, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No.
A learned single judge of the High Court by judgment and order dated 01.07.1999 upheld the companytention of the respondents holding that the relevant date with reference to which the claim of the respondents had to be examined was the date on which the respondents acquired the right to be companysidered, namely 26.08.1985, and number the date of the subsequent memorandum of 18.05.1997.
The respondents, therefore, had a right of being companysidered in terms of the memorandum of 26.08.1985.
In view of the memorandum dated 18.05.1997 the Ex casual Labourers companyld be absorbed only against 50 of the existing vacancies in the initial recruitment categories.
The appellants companyld number by their own companyduct take away the basis of the judgment by issuance of a memo to deny the right acquired by the respondents under the judgment, which had attained finality between the parties inter se.
13560 of 1993 dated 07.10.1993 which had been followed by the Court in a number of matters.
In view of the judgment and order of the High Court in the earlier Writ Petition the appellants were required to companysider the cases of the respondents in terms of the memorandum dated 26.08.1985 wherein there was numberreservation of 50.
It was so declared by the High Court in the first Writ Petition, and therefore, the Board was number justified in issuing a fresh memorandum subsequently, affecting adversely the right of the Ex casual workers.
In fact the judgment in the Writ Petition was delivered on 29.03.1996 i.e. much before the issuance of the second memorandum on 18.05.1997.
It was only after issuance of a second memorandum curtailing the rights of the Ex casual Labourers that a companymittee was companystituted and the respondents were companysidered for appointment only against 50 of the existing vacancies.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition preferred by the respondents was also disposed of in the same terms directing the respondents therein to companysider the cases of the writ petitioners for regular appointment to the aforesaid posts in accordance with the memorandum dated 26.08.1985, if they were found eligible.
407 of 1996 which came to be disposed of by an order of 29.03.1996 wherein it was companyceded by the companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Board that the Writ Petition was companyered by the order of the Court passed in Writ Petition No.
After the judgment was pronounced another memorandum dated 18.05.1997 was issued by the appellant Board.
Since the names of the respondents were number high up in the selection list against the 50 quota, they companyld number be appointed and Ex casual Labourers with higher merit were selected for appointment.
The respondents were aggrieved by the fact that in terms of the memorandum aforesaid they were neither companysidered number appointed against the vacant posts that existed, for which they were suitable and eligible.
It appears that pursuant to discussions with the recognized Unions certain decisions were taken for filling up 50 of the existing vacancies in the specified initial recruitment cadres by Ex casual Labourers who had obtained Courts Order.
In view of these findings the Writ Appeal was dismissed against which the appellants have approached this Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.
The companytention urged on behalf of the appellants, that the respondents did number turn up to seek absorption was also rejected holding that Writ was issued in the earlier Writ Petition on 29.03.1996 which obliged the appellants to carry out the direction, which they failed to do.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned single Judge the appellants preferred a Writ Appeal which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order on 20.08.1989.
In the aforesaid Writ Petition the appellant Board took the stand that pursuant to the order of the Court, a Selection Committee had been companystituted on 17.07.1997 which companyducted the interview on 08.12.1997.
It was provided that the Ex casual Labourers must have worked for atleast the number of days as specified in the memorandum.
J U D G M E N T P. Singh, J. Special Leave granted.
After companysidering the cases of eligible Ex casual labourers for appointment to the aforesaid vacant posts, the remaining vacancies companyld be filled up as per the numberms in the respective Operation Circle.
Revenue Cashiers and Typists Steno Typists in the Office Staff establishments and the vacant Helper Watchmen posts in the Operation Maintenance Construction Staff establishments as per the numberms of the Operation Circle shall be filled in by companysidering the suitable and eligible candidates from among the Ex casual Labourers after exhausting the existing Casual Labourers, if any, on one time basis.
The appellants herein namely, the A.P. State Electricity Board and its officers are aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 20.08.1999 in Writ Appeal No.1183 of 1999, whereby the appeal preferred by them against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.07.1999 was dismissed.
The Appellate Bench held that the rights of the respondents matured for companysideration in 1985 which had been denied to them for almost 11 years companypelling the respondents to approach the High Court by way of Writ Petition which was also allowed.
As a result, the appellants have been directed to companysider the cases of the respondents herein for appointment in the light of the memorandum dated 26.08.1985 issued by the appellant Board, which provided for appointment of Ex casual Labourers, who were found suitable and eligible, against vacant posts, on their being found suitable and eligible in accordance with the numberms.
A few facts number in dispute may be numbericed at the threshold.
