THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition Nos. 6242 of 2003, 10094 of 2005 & 5415 of 2006 Dated: 22.01.2007 Between: W.P.No.6242 of 2003 Md. Zameer Ahmed and others. .... PETITIONERS AND The Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.10094 of 2005 Between: R. Srinivas. ..Petititoner. and The Chairman/Managing Director, Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents. W.P.No.5415 of 2006 Between: Meda Shashi Kumar and another. ..Petititoners. and The Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition Nos. 6242 of 2003, 10094 of 2005 & 5415 of 2006 Common Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners, who claim to have been working as contract labour in the respondent-Company, ﬁled the present writ petitions questioning the action of the respondents in rejecting their cases for the post of LDC on the ground that they have not reached the rank to the extent of vacancies of balance 50% posts as on 18.05.1997 and in the communal roaster points according to their mandays. 3. Though the writ petitions were admitted long back, no counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled. A perusal of the impugned rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent does not indicate proper reasons for rejection of the case of the petitioners and it also does not indicate what is the rank of the selected candidates in the communal roaster. However, during the course of arguments, both the counsel agreed to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the issue. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the agreed stand taken by both the counsel, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with the following direction. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate speaking orders giving the reasons for rejecting the case of the petitioners, expeditiously. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 22.01.2007 sj/nsr