VENNAPUSA ASHOK REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not selecting the petitioner as Manager (Mining) in respondent No.2 organization, in pursuance of, employment notification dtd. 6/10/2024, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner, who completed his Bachelor of Technology in Mining Engineering in the year, 2016 joined respondent No.2 organization in the year, 2019 and worked till 26/9/2024, on a contract basis. The respondents initially appointed the petitioner as Deputy Manager vide letter Ref.No.APMDC/HRD/Contract / 2023/921 dtd. 21/9/2023 and later promoted the petitioner as Manager (Mining). The petitioner worked in the said capacity from 1/10/2023 to 26/9/2024. While so, respondent No.2 issued an employment notification dtd. 6/10/2024 for filling up various positions including 6 posts of Manager (Mining) (Location-Byrates Project, Mangampeta) on a contract basis for three years. The petitioner applied for the post of Manager (Mining). The petitioner's application was shortlisted and he attended an interview scheduled on 20/11/2024. The interview committee informed the petitioner that he was one of the six shortlisted candidates. Five other shortlisted candidates received communication. However, the petitioner has not received any communication. The respondents, with a mala fide intention, have not considered the petitioner for the post of Manager (Mining). A contract employee cannot be replaced with another contract employee.

(3.) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It was contended, interalia, that the petitioner was hired on a contractual basis for a limited period to meet the needs of the Barytes Project at Mangampet and his contract ended on 30/9/2024. Respondent No.2 issued an employment notification dtd. 6/10/2024 for filling up various positions. The selection process was carried out, in adherence to, the prescribed guidelines and the petitioner participated in the said process. As per the selection criteria, candidates are required to secure a minimum of 50% marks to qualify for appointment to any of the notified posts. Whereas the petitioner secured 19 marks out of 50. Hence, the petitioner's candidature was rejected. The interview committee never informed the petitioner that he would be issued appointment orders. The post of Manager (Mining) in the Barytes Project is a post specifically intended to oversee the management and operational affairs of the project. Therefore, the petitioner's reliance on the legal principle that a contractual employee cannot be replaced with another contractual employee does not apply to the facts of the case. After the expiry of the petitioner's tenure, a fresh notification was issued. The petitioner having consciously participated in the selection process without challenging the notification cannot challenge the validity of the process. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.