IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26305 of 1999 Between: Akella Staya Venkata Subbarao, S/o. Parvateesam, 63-5-3A, Dwarkanagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Vidyuthsoudha, Hyderabad. 2 Chief Engineer, A.P. Transco, Vizag Zone, Visakhapatnam. 3 Superintending Engineer Operation Circle, A.P. Transco, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...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 writs or order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner for absorption and regularization under B.P.Ms.No. 36 dated 18-5-97 in Lr.No.SE/O/RJY/ADM/C2/F16/D.No. 5624/99 dt: 7-9-99 as illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice apart from violative of Art. 12, 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, by directing the respondents to forthwith absorb and regularize the services of the petitioner as Junior Lineman or to any other suitable post. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. M. Balanaga Srinivas Counsel for the respondents: Mr. P.R. Balarami Reddy (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 07-09-1999 issued by the third respondent, Superintending Engineer, A.P. Transco, Operation Circle, Rajahmundry, in Lr.No.SE/O/Rjy./Adm.C2/F16/D.No.5624/99, wherein the claim of the petitioner, for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman, is rejected. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as casual labour and worked as such in Distribution IV Section of Operation Sub-division, Kakinada under the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board from 01-07-1980 to 14-11-1980. When large number of workers were engaged on casual basis as casual labour/contract labour, there was a demand from the trade unions to consider the claims of such workers while filling up vacancies. In view of the agreement entered into by the management of the erstwhile APSEB, accepting the demands of the unions, proceedings were issued in B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-05-1997 to consider the claims of casual labour/contract labour, etc., to the extent of 50% of vacancies, in the posts of Junior Linemen, Lower Division Clerks etc. On the ground that his case was not considered in the light of the benefits notified in B.P.Ms.No.36, the petitioner, earlier, approached this court by way of W.P.No.7162 of 1998 and in view of the directions issued therein, his claim was considered and he was interviewed. However, on the ground that he failed in pole-climbing test, his claim for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman was rejected by the impugned proceedings. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is qualified to hold the post of Junior Lineman and the reason stated by the respondents in the impugned order, i.e. he could not pass the pole-climbing test and therefore his case was not considered, is illegal. 4. Though the writ petition was called in the forenoon and afternoon, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. In this case, it is to be seen that the petitioner was working as casual labour in the erstwhile APSEB and in view of the demand of the trade unions to consider the claims of casual labour/contract labour while filling up vacancies, accepting such demand, the erstwhile APSEB entered into agreement and issued proceedings in B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-05-1997 to consider the claims of casual labour/contract labour, etc., to the extent of 50% of vacancies, in the posts of Junior Linemen, Lower Division Clerks etc. On the ground that his case was not considered in the light of the benefits notified in B.P.Ms.No.36, the petitioner, earlier, approached this court by way of W.P.No.7162 of 1998 and in view of the directions issued therein, his claim was considered and he was interviewed. However, as he failed in pole-climbing test, impugned proceedings were issued rejecting his claim. It is to be noted that the post of Lineman is technical in nature and passing in the pole-climbing test is indispensable for being appointed to the said post. When such test is prescribed for all the candidates who are called for interview, uniformly, and the candidates who are unsuccessful in the said test are not selected, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, who has not passed the pole-climbing test, cannot be said to be illegal. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. March 19, 2009 MRR