IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21347 OF 2011 Date:29.07. 2011 Between:- L.Rahul and others .. Petitioners And The A.P.Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., having its Corporate Office at Hanma Konda, Waranga District, rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director and another. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the petitioners’ candidature for the post of Junior Lineman vide letter No.SE/OP/KNR/PO/JAO/LEGAL/D.No.992/07, dated 28.07.2007, on the ground that they have not passed I.T.I. as on 06.06.2006 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, set aside the same and direct respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioners in the said post against the existing vacancies pursuant to the revised notification, dated 21.10.2006, basing on their success in the pole climbing test held on 22.05.2007, 24.05.2007 and 24.05.2007 respectively on par with the other fresh I.T.I. holders. 2. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 Company issued notification, dated 06.06.2006, calling for applications from the candidates, who passed I.T.I. in Electrical Trade, for filling up of 1434 posts of Junior Lineman on yearly contract basis in five circles. No preference was provided to the contract labour but held that residence in the notified area of jurisdiction was compulsory. As the Government received several representations from the employees’ unions, it approved the enlargement of qualifications and assignment of appropriate weightage for relevant work experience for selection of Junior Lineman on contract basis. Questioning the eligibility criteria, W.P.No.17809 of 2006 was filed and it was disposed of directing the respondent Company to treat the operation circle/district as unit of appointment, subject to possessing the required qualification and compliance of all other conditions notified for making appointments. Accordingly, a revised notification, dated 21/23.10.2006, was issued by respondent No.1 company. Para No.2 of the revised notification deals with educational qualifications, but it does not stipulate that the candidate should possess the qualification as on 06.06.2006. The revised notification provided preference to the presently serving contract labour. When respondent No.1 has not provided any cut of date with reference to the educational qualifications, the educational qualification as on the date of the revised notification i.e., 23.10.2006 has to be considered by the respondent Company but the respondent Company cannot rely upon the first notification dated 06.06.2006 when the same was not provided in the notification. When the petitioners were not called for the interview/pole climbing test, they filed W.P.Nos.7473 and 8313 of 2007. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were called for the climbing test and were successful in the said test. But the petitioners were rejected appointment vide impugned letter on the ground that they passed I.T.I. in July, 2006. It is not open to respondent No.3 to read something which is not there in the revised notification and their case has to be considered on par with the other freshers. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the petitioners do not possess I.T.I. in Electrical Trade as on the date of first notification, they possessed the said qualification at the time of revised qualification and hence, the case of petitioners may be considered, and prays to set aside the impugned letter. 4. On the other hand, Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Company contended that as on the date of first notification only, the requisite qualification possessed by the candidates can be looked into for the purpose of selecting the candidates; that therefore, the question of considering the case of petitioners in pursuance of the second notification does not arise. 5. It is not in dispute that by virtue of notification, dated 06.06.2006, certain posts of Junior Lineman on yearly contract basis were notified prescribing education qualifications as “Pass in ITI in Electrical Trade”. Thereafter, the respondent Company issued the revised notification, dated 23.10.2006, in pursuance of the first notification, dated 06.06.2006, prescribing educational qualifications as “SSLC/SSC/10th class with ITI qualification in electrical/wireman trade or Intermediate vocational course in electrical trade is compulsory”. As on the date of revised notification, the petitioners acquired qualification of ITI in Electrical Trade. Therefore, both the notifications have to be read together for the purpose of determining the date on which the requisite qualification is necessary. If these two notifications are read together, as on the date of revised notification, one must possess, SSLC/SSC/10th class with electrical or wireman trade or Intermediate vocational course in electrical trade. Therefore, by the date of second notification, petitioners possessed the requisite educational qualification for the purpose of participation in the selection process. Therefore, denying the right of the petitioners in participation of the selection process is illegal and cannot be countenanced. 6. Therefore, the respondent Company is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for participation in selection process and if they are qualified and eligible, their cases have to be considered in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the service conditions to the post of Lineman within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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.21347 OF 2011 Date:29.07.2011 AMD