IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21371 OF 2011 Date:29.07. 2011 Between:- V.Ramesh and others. .. Petitioners And The A.P. Transco, rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in deviating clause 6 (iv)(c) of the Revised Notification and further, as per the undertaking in the judgment in W.A.No.1434 of 2008 and batch whereby appointment orders to the post of C.J.L.M. to the petitioners were not issued as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, declare that the petitioners are subjected to receive all the consequential benefits like that of the other candidates recruited, as per the notifications issued by the respondents. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition may be sated as follows:- Respondent No.3 issued a notification, dated 06.06.2006, to fill up 1434 posts of Junior Wireman existing with R2-company. A revised notification, dated 20.10.2006, was issued by respondent No.3 by amending certain clauses and also by incorporating certain fresh clauses in the notification. Various discrepancies occurred at the time of issuing call letters to the interviews, conducting interviews and selection of the candidates in the interview, which prompted in filing number of writ petitions. Pole climbing test will be conducted by the Interview Board in each circle. The candidates, who succeeded in the interview, and failed to receive the appointment orders, filed W.P.No.19051 of 2007 and batch, which was allowed on 02.05.2008. One of the contentions raised in the judgment was with regard to clause 6 (iv)(c) of the revised notification and the same was enumerated in para Nos.24 and 25 of the said judgment. Aggrieved thereby, respondents filed W.A.No.1434 of 2008 and batch, wherein this Court disposed of those appeals directing the appellants therein to appoint all the respondents therein, who submitted their applications pursuant to the notification, dated 08.06.2006, and who passed the pole climbing test and fulfilled the other eligibility criteria, for appointment as Junior Lineman, without reference to and without insisting upon the fulfillment of Condition No.6(iv)(c) of the revised notification, dated 20.10.2006, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and that direction would be applicable to all those candidates, who have not approached this Court but applied pursuance to the aforementioned notifications, subject to passing of the pole climbing test and fulfillment of eligibility criteria. But the respondents failed to implement the orders in toto and later, the respondents entered into a Memorandum of Settlement wherein respondent No.1 accepted the proposal. As the respondents failed to implement the proposal, C.C.No.467 of 2010 and batch were filed and they were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the entire process expeditiously. Though the petitioners are qualified in all respects including passing of pole climbing test, they failed to receive the appointment orders and hence, filed W.P.No.1206 of 2010 and batch, wherein interim order was granted on 28.01.2010 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1434 of 2008 and batch and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of that order. As the said order was not implemented, C.C.No.1651 of 2010 was filed and it is pending. Respondent No.1 communicated to the Government by proceedings, dated 12.01.2011, that pertaining to Karimnagar Circle, the number of vacancies as on 30.11.2010 are 317 and out of which, the qualified candidates, who approached this Court, are 40 in number. While so, respondent No.4 prepared a combined list of qualified candidates, as per the interviews conducted, in which the fresh candidates were included and the merit has been taken as per the percentage of marks obtained, thereby, a list of 601 candidates was prepared. The said list was prepared by respondent No.4 by clubbing the service and fresh candidates thereon and it is against clause 6(iv)(c) of the revised notification though this Court specifically observed that all the candidates, who are qualified and contract labour, are subjected to be recruited. In the merit list, the petitioners are at placed at different serial numbers. There are only 317 posts to be filled up and the petitioners, who succeeded and satisfied clause 6(iv)(c) of the revised notification were unable to receive appointment orders. Respondent No.4 is attempting to issue appointment orders in various divisions by virtue of proceedings, dated 21.07.2011. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that preference shall be given to the petitioners, who are working as Contract Labourers, in terms of Clause 6 (iv) (b) of the revised notification, but the respondents are violating the same; that instead of following the terms and conditions laid down in the revised notification, the respondents prepared a combined merit list, which is contrary to the terms of the said notification, and hence, prays to give appointments to the petitioners in terms of the said notification. 4. On the other hand, Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that the selection process is based on merit and performance in pole climbing test and it is completely in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the revised notification; and that there is no illegality or irregularity in preparing the combined selection list. 5. The respondents issued a notification, dated 06.06.2006, calling for applications to work as a Junior Lineman on yearly contract basis. Thereafter, they issued a revised notification, dated 20.10.2006, prescribing certain conditions for the recruitment. As far as the present case is concerned, clause 6 (iv) (b) of the revised notification is relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved, which reads as follows: “If contract labour and fresh candidates apply for the post, the contract labour will be given preference for selection.” Therefore, basing on the above clause, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that only the persons, who are working as contract labourers, should be selected in the first instance and thereafter, the left over vacancies shall be filled up through the fresh candidates. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that basing on merit and ability, a combined list is prepared and therefore, the preparation of the combined merit list is completely in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the revised notification. 6. If really the intention of the respondents is to appoint only the contract labour, who are working, they should have notified in the notification to that effect that in the first instance that the preference will be given to the persons, who are already working as a contract labour and if there are any left over vacancies, the same will be filled through fresh candidates. But the notification would go to show that when contract labour, who are working and fresh candidates apply for the post, the contract labour will be given preference for selection. That indicates that when the contract labour and fresh candidate secures equal marks, then only, preference will be given to the contract labour, who are working. Therefore, the preparation of selection list based upon the merit and ability cannot be said to be contrary to the revised notification. There cannot be any dispute that the merit should be the criteria for selecting the candidates in the process of selection. It is not the case of the petitioners that the procedure for selecting the candidates is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the notification. Therefore, basing on merit only, the combined merit list has been prepared by the respondents and depending upon the posts notified, the candidates, who secured more marks in the order of preference, shall be given appointment. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the recruitment process is not in accordance with clause 6(iv)(b) of the revised notification cannot be accepted. The petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the admission stage, as no right of petitioners, is infringed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 29th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21371 OF 2011 Date:29.07.2011 AMD