IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17050 of 2007 Between: S.A.Raheem, S/o. Kareem, R/o. C/o. Mohd.Rahmathullah, H.No.17-1-30/2/4, Edi Bazar, Post: Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.,Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. Represented by Its Chairman cum Managing Director. 2 The Superintending Engineer (operation) Operation Circle Ranga Reddy (South) A.P.C.P.D.C.L.Mint Compound, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue, writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction to set aside the impugned order bearing Lr.No.SE/OPRRC(S)/Adm/C3/D No 1481/06-07 dt.16.01.2007, declaring the action of the respondent corporation in not absorbing the petitioner to the post of LDC on par with the other similarly situated candidates as illegal arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice apart from violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India with consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith absorb the petitioner for the post of LDC and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims to have worked as a contract labour with a licensed contractor of erstwhile A.P.S.E.B. The APSEB entered into an agreement with the recognized unions and issued B.P.(P&G.PER) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, for absorption and regularization of ex- casual labour, village electricity workers and contract labour to the extent of 50% existing vacancies as on 18.05.1997. When the case of the petitioner was not considered, he along with others approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5064 of 1999. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 18.11.1999 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein. The respondents issued rejection order vide letter No.SE/OP/RRC(S)/ Adm/D.No.2299/02, dated 21.11.2002 on twin reasons: 1) Agreement No. and Check Measurement date not mentioned in the service certificate; 2) The service certificates furnished by the petitioner along with application form was sent to the Vigilance Cell of A.P.TRANSCO for verification to confirm the genuineness of service certificates. As per the report of Vigilance Cell of A.P.TRANSCO the genuineness with regard to his service with contractor could not be established due to lack of corroborating evidence. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner along with two others namely B.Suresh and M.Raju filed W.P.No.17934 of 2003. The said writ petition came to be disposed of setting aside the rejection order dated 21.11.2002 and directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the existing or future vacancies in terms of B.P.(P&G.PER) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the said order, which reads as hereunder: “In the present case, the service certificates were issued by the contractors and the same were counter signed by the officers of the respondent organization. As regards the first objection as to non mentioning of agreement number and check measurement, the same are not expected to be furnished by the petitioners. So far as second objection is concerned, in view of the fact that the service certificates of the petitioners are counter signed by the officers of the respondent organization, it is now not open for the respondents, to take such an objection. The very fact that the said service certificates were signed by the officials of the respondent corporation, itself is a sufficient evidence to prove the said certificates. Similar matters were earlier allowed by this Court setting aside the similar objections. In the above circumstances, the impugned proceedings dated 21.11.2002 are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the claims of the petitioners in the existing or future vacancies in terms of B.P.M.S.No.36 dated 18.05.1997, subject to petitioners fulfilling other conditions.” The respondents Corporation issued a letter bearing No.SE/OP/RRC(S)Adm/D.No.2319/03, dated 13.11.2003 directing the petitioner to appear for interview in the chambers of the Superintending Engineer, Operation/Ranga Reddy South, Mint Compound. The petitioner attended the interview and produced required certificates. The selection committee short listed the names of the eligible candidates and addressed a letter to the Chairman and Managing Director of A.P.TRANSCO recommending the name of the petitioner for the post of L.D.C. vide Lr.No.CGM (IR & Legal) /AS(IR)/JO-G/G1/1284/2000, dt.19.02.2004. Even after selection committee recommending the name of the petitioner, the respondents Corporation failed to comply the orders passed in W.P.No.17934 of 2003. Therefore, the petitioner alongwith two others filed Contempt Case being C.C.No.71 of 2005. The contempt case came to be closed on 11.03.2005. The order passed in the contempt case reads as hereunder: “Heard Mr.T.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Mr.N.Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel for the respondents. The main grievance of the petitioners in this contempt is that the respondents have not implemented the orders passed by this Court on 15.09.2003 where under this Court gave a direction to consider the cases of the petitioners in the existing or future vacancy in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 subject to petitioners fulfilling other conditions. It is now represented that the cases of the petitioners have already been considered and also steps have been taken. Having regard to the fact that the aforesaid steps have already been taken by the respondents, I do not find any contempt as such. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed.” After lapse of one and half years, the respondents Corporation communicated the petitioner under letter No.SE/OP/RRC(S) Adm./D.No.784/2006, dated 31.08.2006 that his case for appointment as LDC cannot be considered and directed him to produce material evidence to show and prove that he worked on 18.05.1997 with the contractor and eligible otherwise in terms and conditions as per B.P.M.S.No.36 dated 18.05.1997, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. He sent a reply on 16.09.2006. He along with two others filed C.C.No.962 of 2006 complaining disobedience of the order dated 15.09.2003. The contempt case came to be dismissed on 19.01.2007. The relevant portion of the order passed in C.C.No.962 of 2006 reads as hereunder: “With reference to the above submission, it is to be seen that his court by order dated 15.09.2003 has not issued any positive direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court, respondents have addressed letter dated 22.02.2005 to the petitioner stating that his candidature would be considered in terms of the decision of the committee constituted by the Board of A.P. Trans. Co. It is stated that during the course of examination, certain deficiencies were found in considering the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, letter dated 31.08.2006 was addressed to the petitioner inviting his explanation whether he was on rolls as on 18.05.1997, to which there was no explanation from the petitioner. As much as respondents have taken into consideration the certificate produced by the petitioner and addressed letter dated 18.05.1997 to him recording reasons for rejecting his claim, whereby he was called for to prove that he was on rolls as on 18.05.1997, it cannot be said that respondents have violated the orders of this court, attracting the provisions of the Act. No case of contempt, as alleged, has been made out to grant the relief as prayed for.” The respondents Corporation issued rejection order dated 16.01.2007 vide Lr.No.SE/OP/RRC(S)Adm/C3/D.No.1481/06-07. For better appreciation, I may refer the text of the letter, which reads as hereunder: “This is with reference to the proceedings issued vide reference No.4 above stating that on thorough verification and examination of entire record, registers, M-Books and other relevant documents of the Contractor M/s. S &s Enterprises under whom you were alleged to have worked on 18.05.1997 and who issued you the Service Certificate. It is revealed that you were not on our rolls as on 18.05.1997 and therefore we provisionally based on the reasons stated in the earlier Speaking Orders concluded that your case for appointment for the post of LDC under BP.Ms.No.36, Dt.18.05.1997 cannot be considered. “Accordingly you were also issued show cause notice Dt.31.08.2006 requiring you to produce evidence to show and prove that you have worked on 18.05.1997 and eligible otherwise in terms and conditions and guidelines of BP.Ms.No.36, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said letter.” You have failed to produce material evidence within the above stipulated period, to prove your case that you were on rolls/worked as on 18.05.1997 inspite of giving reasonable opportunity. The material documents shows that you are ineligible to be considered in terms of BP.Ms.No.36, Dt.18.05.1997. Hence, you case for consideration for appointment under B.P.Ms.No.36, Dt.18.05.1997 is rejected and no further correspondent in this matter will be entertained.” The said order of rejection is under challenge in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, respondents Corporation have absorbed candidates, who are similarly situated as that of him, as per B.P. (P&G.PER) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 and therefore, order rejecting to absorb him in the post of LDC under B.P.(P&G.PER) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 is not legal and proper. 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 14.08.2007. 3. The respondents entered appearance. 2nd respondent filed counter- affidavit. G.Raghuma Reddy, Superintending Engineer, Operation, APCPDCL, R.R.South, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner submitted a representation on 16.09.2006 and on considering his representation he was called upon under a letter dated 16.01.2007 to produce any material evidence as proof of his working as a contract labour as on 18.05.1997 and as he failed to produce any material evidence, his case for absorption as LDC came to be rejected. The proceedings impugned in the writ petition are preceded by a show-cause notice. The case of the petitioner came to be rejected as he failed to produce any material evidence that he was working as a contract labour as on 18.05.1997. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel of APCPDCL appearing for the respondents Corporation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that rejection order impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained since similar grounds, which formed the basis for rejection, came to be set aside by this Court in W.P.No.17934 of 2003. He would further contend that rejection orders in respect of similarly placed persons as that of the petitioner came to be set aside by this Court in series of writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.17163, 17599 and 18526 of 2002 and therefore, the order of rejection impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents corporation submits that the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity to place on record the material as proof of his working under a contractor in connection with the works of APSEB as on 18.05.1997 and as the petitioner failed to substantiate the same, his case came to be rejected and thus, the rejection order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. 7. Responding to the contention canvassed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the letter dated 19.02.2004 whereunder selection committee recommended the name of the petitioner along with some others for being absorbed as LDC. I deem it appropriate to refer the text of the said letter and it is thus: “It is to inform that as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.Nos.11302/03, 17934/03, 14784/03, 16947/03, 17941/03 and 11301/03 respectively, the Superintending Engineer/Operation/Ranga Reddy (South) is permitted to conduct interviews to the petitioners in the existing 50% vacancies as on 18.05.1997. Accordingly, interviews conducted to the petitioners on 21.11.2003 at Superintending Engineer/Operation/Ranga Reddy (South) office before a selection committee. The selection committee has recommended for consideration of the following 17 Nos. petitioners as follows as they fulfilled all the conditions as stipulated by APTRANSCO from time to time. Sl. No. Name of the contract labour Recommendation of the selection committee for the post 1. Sarva Sri/Smt. R.Kondal Reddy Sub-Engineer 2. K.Meghanath Reddy Sub=Engineer 3. Padmanabha Subba Rao Sub-Engineer 4. K.Vijaya Lakshmi LDC 5. M.Durga Prasad Sub-Engineer 6. K.Udaya Bhaskar Rao LDC 7. P.Venkatesh Sub-Engineer 8. V.Janaki Ramana Kumari LDC 9. N.Yadaiah LDC 10. B.Suresh LDC 11. S.A.Raheem LDC 12. M.Raju Typist 13. Anugu Tirupathi Reddy Sub-Engineer 14. L.Srinivas Sub-Engineer 15. A.Ashok Kumar LDC 16. T.Lakshmi Prasanna LDC 17. K.Ashok Sub-Engineer At present the following vacancies of Sub-Engineers, LDCs, Typists are available in Ranga Reddy Circle under 50% vacancies. Sub-Engineer - 12 LDCs - 47 Typists - 8 In view of the orders issued in the reference 3rd cited necessary permission may be accorded to issue regular appointments to the above candidates under 50% vacancies as on 18.5.1997.” 8. The question that calls for adjudication in this writ petition is, whether the rejection order dated 16.01.2007 vide Lr.No.SE/OP/RRC(S)Adm./C3/D.No.1481/06-07 issued by the 2nd respondent is sustainable? 9. There is no dispute with regard to APSEB entering into an agreement with the recognized unions and issuing B.P.(P&G.PER) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Under the said scheme, 50% of the existing vacancies as on 18.05.1997 are to be set apart for eligible persons in the category of ex-casual labour, Village Electricity Workers and contract labour. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims that he was a contract labour working as LDC as on 18.05.1997 and thus he is eligible for absorption in the respondents corporation. A Committee has been constituted to consider the claims of all the three categories of workmen. For better understanding, I may refer the relevant portion of the B.P.(P&G.PER) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, which reads as hereunder: “4. The A.P.S.E.Board accordingly issued the following orders in suppression of the orders issued in the reference 2 & 3rd cited. i) Ex-Casual Labour: The Ex-casual Labour who were already interviewed but failed in the test and given second chance and also obtained interim orders from the High Court for consideration are only eligible for selection for ……. ii) Village Electricity Workers: In terms of the agreement, dated 5.2.95, the cases of Village Electricity Workers shall be considered for selection and appointment against 50% of the existing vacancies subject to the condition that they are not eligible to derive any benefit for their earlier service and on selection they will be appointed as fresh candidates in A.P.S.E.B. iii) Contract Labour: The contract labour other than those engaged in 33 abolished categories in generating stations shall be considered for selection and appointment against 50% existing vacancies. 5. The guidelines for selection of the candidates from the above categories shall be as follows: a) Age: Age shall be reckoned as per Board’s service regulations in force at the time of their first engagement. There shall no relaxation of age. b) Educational Qualification: Educational qualifications shall be as per Board’s service regulations in force at the time of their first engagement. There shall be no relaxation of educational qualification or other relevant technical qualification, which are prescribed in the service regulations for such appointment. c) Seniority: The seniority shall be reckoned based on the total period of service rendered by the respective candidates in unity as per muster rolls/wage registers as per the records maintained under the contract labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, 1970. Separate seniority list shall be prepared for each category as per their eligibility. The continuous period of working shall be taken for purpose of reckoning seniority in respect of Village Electricity Workers. d) Rule of Reservation: The rule of reservation as per master in terms of Reg.22 of A.P.S.E.B. Services Regulation Part-II shall be strictly followed. e) Selection Committee:- 1) Director Personnel. 2) Concerned Chief Engineer from generating 3) Deputy Secretary (Personnel) 4) Director (Industrial Relating) Members Connor. 6. The selection committee constituted above shall select the candidates suitable for appointment for each category and communicate the lists to the concerned appointing authorities. They shall appoint the selected candidates depending upon vacancies available duly adopting the rule of reservations in terms of Reg.23 of APSEB Service Regulations.” 10. The case of the petitioner came to be rejected on the following grounds: 1) The service certificate produced by him does not contain the agreement numbers and dates of check measurements; 2) The agreements entered by the then APSEB with the contractor viz., Radhika Electrical Engineering Works, who issued the Service Certificate to the petitioner, are either before the cut off date or after the cut of date; 3) There is no proof that the petitioner was covered under E.P.F. and E.S.I. Act. The Selection Committee constituted pursuant to the B.P.(P&G.PER) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, considered the claim of the petitioner and found him eligible for his absorption as LDC. In the rejection order, the recommendations of the Selection Committee have not been taken into consideration. 11. In that view of the matter, the order of rejection impugned in this writ petition is set aside directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner keeping in view the recommendations made by the Selection Committee constituted under the B.P.(P&G.PER) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:03rd February, 2009. Cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}