IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6171 of 2000 Between: 1 A. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Narayana Rao D.No. 20E-8-41, Karnamvari Street, Kothapeta, Eluru - 2. 2 P. Giridhar S/o. Madhusudana Rao Railway Line Road, H.No. 22D-1-7, Ramakrishnapuram, Eluru, W.G. District. 3 Gokavaram Sreenu S/o. G. Venkataratnam ALM, APSEBoard, Rayalam, W.G. District. 4 P. Srinivasa Dhana Babu S/o. P. Venkata Rao Near Railway Station, Palacole, W.G. District. 5 G.V.H. Sivarama Prasad S/o. Krishna Murthy C/o. Stamahalakshmi, 26-5-6/Kummarla Ramalayam, Balusumudi, Bhimavaram. 6 Yarra Narayana Rao S/o. Surya Chandra Rao Rayalam, W.G. District. 7 Suresh Satyam S/o. Ramu Nachuvari Centre, Mission Hospital Road, Kothaveedhi, Bhimavaram, W.G.District. 8 K. Vijaya Kumar S/o. Haranadha Babu R/o. Bayyannagudem, W.G. District. 9 M.V. Subba Raju R/o. Bhimavaram, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Managing Director, Rep. the A.P. Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P. Transco, Eluru, W.G.District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.R.ANNAPURNA Counsel for the Respondents: 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 action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners as junior linemen as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint them as junior linemen after setting aside order dated 13-01-2000 issued by respondent No.2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, and perused the record. The petitioners claim to be the ex-contract labourers. As their claims for absorption in the 50% of the vacancies earmarked for the categories of ex-casual labourers, ex-contract labourers and village electricity workers under B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-05-1997 were rejected, they have earlier approached this Court and in terms of the orders of this Court, the petitioners were interviewed and their cases were rejected by separate but similar orders passed on 13-01-2000 by respondent No.2. In the said orders, it is stated that the petitioners could not be selected, as all the 50% vacancies were filled up by persons with higher merit. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit supporting the reason given in the impugned order. The petitioners failed to substantiate as to how the reason contained in the impugned order suffers from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of the petitioners establishing that the reason contained in the impugned order, namely; the persons with higher merit were chosen for being appointed, there is no reason for this Court to invalidate the impugned order and grant any relief to the petitioners. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd January, 2009 vrn