Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the selection made on the basis of the notification dated 12-6-2015 to the posts of Junior Linemen for different subsidiaries including respondent No.2, M/s. Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short, 'CHESCOM'). Their prayer before this Court is that the respondents should be directed to consider the case of the petitioners on preference basis, after giving them weightage, and to include their names in the selection list to the posts of Junior Linemen.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioners No.2, 3, 4 and 8 has completed their P.U. course, and petitioner No.6 has completed his I.T.I. course. On 4-5-2007, an advertisement was issued calling for applications for the posts of Gangmen to the Sub-divisions of Hassan. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioners applied for the said posts. They were appointed temporarily by Office Memorandum, dated 23-11-2007. After their appointment, they were trained by the respondent Company. However, after a lapse of three years, on 31-12-2010, the petitioners' services were illegally terminated. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the illegal termination, they raised an industrial dispute, which is presently pending before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Division II. On 12-6-2015, the K.P.T.C.L. issued an advertisement for Junior Linemen for different subsidiaries including CHESCOM. According to the advertisement, there were 857 vacancies for the said post. Although the petitioners have applied for the said posts, the petitioners have not been selected, ostensibly, on the ground that they have secured less marks, than the cut off marks of 65%. Therefore, on 13-7-2015, the petitioners submitted representations to the Managing Director, CHESCOM. They have requested that preference should be given to them by giving them weightage for the number of years they have worked for the Company. It is the case of the petitioners that if they were given the weightage, and given preference, they would certainly be selected for the said posts. Hence, these petitions before this Court.
(3.) Mr. K. Subba Rao, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submits that in the case of MS. S. PUSHPA AND OTHERS v. GOVERNMENT OF KARNTAKA AND OTHERS (Writ Petition Nos.173-195 of 2004 and connected writ petitions), by order dated 23-2-2004, this Court had directed the respondents, which included the K.P.T.C.L. to formulate a scheme, and to give preference to those employees, who are/were working for the K.P.T.C.L., in case, vacancies arose in the future. Moreover, in case of MR. K.R. VIJAYKUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (Writ Petition Nos.13711-13723 of 2015 decided on 9-4-2015), this Court again directed the Electricity Company, including BESCOM, to implement the order dated 23-2-2004. Hence, according the learned senior counsel, since a new set of vacancy has arisen in 2015, and since this Court had already directed the respondents to give preference to those employees, who are still working, or who have worked for the Company, the same benefits should have been extended to the petitioners with regard to the Junior Linemen as advertised on 12-6-2015.;