C RAMAKRISHNA Vs. ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very peculiar case where the rules do not provide any mechanism to initiate appropriate action against the Director of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad (APERC, for short). The appeal is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge in W.P.M.P. No. 31513 of 2011 in W.P. No. 18427 of 2009 dated 20-9-2011 through which directions were issued to enquire into the allegations against the appellant herein. The APERC (4th respondent herein) was constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 (the Act, for short). In response to the Notification dated 01-01-2003 for the post of the Director (Administration), the appellant applied on 15-02-2003. On the basis of the information furnished by the appellant together with certified copies of the qualifications of the appellant, the appellant was appointed by the 4th respondent-APERC as Director (Administration) through orders dated 28-5-2003.

(2.) The 1st respondent is the recognized Association of the employees of APERC. The respondents 2 and 3 are members of the 1st respondent-Association. They laid the writ petition before the learned single Judge seeking for the removal of the appellant through a Writ of quo warranto on the ground that the appellant did not possess 15 years of experience in administrative position at the managerial level dealing with Human Resources Development. A miscellaneous petition was laid by the writ petitioners in W.P.M.P. No. 31513 of 2011 seeking for a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to submit a report to the Government about the appellant in response to the letter of the Government dated 06-01-2011. They claimed that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications for appointment as the Director (Administration), that he secured appointment by suppressing the fact and that the Government in fact directed the respondents 4 and 5 through letter dated 06-01-2011 to submit a report about the eligibility of the appellant to hold the post of Director (Administration).

(3.) Through the impugned order dated 20-9-2011, the learned single Judge ordered: