IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1179 of 2002 Between: Ch. Lalbahadur Sastry S/o Ch. Suryanarayana R/o D.No. 4-67, Budampadu Post, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P. Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Maruti Nagar, Tirupati. 2 The Superintending Engineer (Operation Circle), A.P. Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., 4-7, Brodipet, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GIRI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: MR P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in appointing the petitioner as Sub- Engineer in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-05-1997 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for invalidation of proceedings dated 18-12-2001 issued by respondent No.2, whereby his case for absorption was rejected. The petitioner claims to have worked as a Contract Labourer. The respondents issued B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-05-1997 providing for absorption of certain categories of workers against 50% of the vacancies earmarked in different categories of posts, which include the post of Sub-Engineer. The petitioner’s claim for absorption was rejected on the ground that he did not work under a licensed contractor on an earlier occasion. Therefore, he along with eight other persons filed W.P. No.2698 of 1999, which was allowed by this Court with the direction to the respondents not to disqualify the petitioner and others from consideration of their cases for regularization in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 solely on the ground that they were engaged by an unlicensed contractor. The respondents have reconsidered and rejected the case of the petitioner by the impugned proceedings on the ground that the service certificate produced by him at the time of the interview held on 27-03-1998 is not genuine. Questioning this rejection order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the time of hearing, Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to letter dated 29-05-2000 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, wherein, he inter alia, mentioned as under- “Further it is submitted that a copy of representation received from Sri B.Koteswara Rao in the ref. last cited and also the endorsement made by the Managing Director/APSPDC Ltd./it has been examined once again with the connected records (i.e.) S.S Log Books which were called for from the Section Officers. On verification of records, it is observed that 3 petitioners covered in the contempt case have attended shift duties in sub-stations on 18-05-1997. But, no field officer has certified the work done on 18-05-1997.” The learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on paragraph 2 of a purported counter served on him. The file does not contain any such counter-affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel, however, admitted that his file also contains a copy of the counter- affidavit, the contents of which tally with the contents of the counter- affidavit served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. He passed on a copy of the counter-affidavit to the Court, a perusal of which shows that neither the name of the deponent to the counter-affidavit nor his signature is found therein. However, in view of the admission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the contents of the purported counter-affidavit reflect the true state of affairs, I am inclined to place reliance on its contents. In the said counter-affidavit also, it is mentioned as under- “It is submitted that as per the S.S.Log Book pertaining to 33/11 KV SS Brodipet, Guntur, the petitioner attended shift duties on 18-05-1997 but the work was not certified by the concerned field officer and this has been communicated to the corporate office/APSPDCL/Tirupathi vide Lr.No.SE/O/GNT/Adm/C3/D.No.703/00, dated 29-05- 2000.” From the above discussed admitted material, it is quite evident that the earlier stand taken by the respondents that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner is not genuine cannot be sustained in the face of respondent No.2’s own admission that his verification of S.S log book of 33/11 KV Sub-Station, Brodipet, Guntur revealed that the petitioner attended shift duties on 18-05-1997. Admittedly, under BPMS No.36 dated 18-05-1997, a contract labourer, who worked as on 18-05-1997 is entitled to be considered for regularization/absorption. If the Field Officer concerned has not certified the petitioner attending the shift duty on 18-05-1997, the petitioner cannot be blamed nor the factum of his working as on 18-05-1997 cannot be discounted. Therefore, in my view, rejection of petitioner’s case for regularization on the ground that he failed to produce the material to show that he worked on 18-05-1997 cannot be sustained. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case for regularization as Sub- Engineer by treating him as having worked on 18-05-1997 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 27th January, 2009 vrn