K RAMA KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals arise out of the same impugned order, namely order dated 28.06.2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16692 of 2015 and W.P.No.9963 of 2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the writ petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts are being taken from W.A.No.685 of 2019 filed against W.P.No.16692 of 2015.

(3.) Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner, Mr. K.Ramakrishna, claims that he is an ITI Electrician (EEE) Diploma holder, and has been working as Sub-Engineer/Electrical in Kakatiya Thermal Power Project of APGENCO, Chelpur, Warangal District, on contract basis. In 2011, the respondents issued a notification calling for applications for the post of Junior Plant Attendant. According to the notification, there were 1086 vacancies for the said post. According to the petitioner, despite the fact that he applied for the said post, he was given neither five marks as "weightage marks" for having worked for six months with the respondents, nor given ten marks as "weightage marks" for having worked with the respondents for a period of more than six months. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a representation before the respondents for considering his case for granting the benefit of "weightage marks". However, the said representation dated 06.11.2013 fell on deaf ears. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition before this Court, namely, W.P.No.3413 of 2014. By order dated 07.02.2014, a learned Single Judge directed the respondents to consider his representation dated 06.11.2013, and to pass orders as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, the said representation was rejected by order dated 29.03.2014. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, namely, W.P.No.16692 of 2015 challenging the same before the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order dated 28.06.2019, the learned Single Judge, as mentioned hereinabove, has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, these writ appeals before this Court.