THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.1294 of 2007 Date: 23.09.2010 Between: Lanki Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner AND The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., at Visakhapatnam, rep.by its Superintending Engineer, Operation, Vidyutsakha Bhavan, Godavaribund, Rajahmundry (PO) E.G. Dist. and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.1294 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner assails the action of the Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited (APEPDCL) in not calling him for interview and considering his eligibility for absorption in the post of Junior Lineman and seeks a consequential direction to do so. The petitioner claims to have worked as contract labour in the APEPDCL during the years 1996 to 2000 and thereafter as a shift operator for a period of about two months in the year 2003. While so, the APEPDCL issued a notification on 07.06.2006 and thereafter, a revised notification dated 18.10.2006, calling for applications for appointment to the posts of Junior Lineman on contract basis for a period of one year. As per this notification, 549 posts were available in the area of operation of SE/Operation, Rajahmundry. The notification provided that candidates who were presently serving as contract labour would be given preference over fresh candidates. Insofar as fresh candidates are concerned, the marks obtained in the qualifying examination were taken to be the criterion for selection. The eligibility conditions required the candidates to possess SSC, ITI (Electrical Trade) or wireman or intermediate vocational training in electrical. Admittedly, the petitioner was not working as contract labour as on the date of issuance of the notification or the revised notification. As per the counter filed by the APEPDCL, in the first instance 390 candidates, who were working in the APEPDCL as shift operators/contract labour having a preferential right of being considered, were called for the pole climbing test and out of them 348 candidates were selected and appointed. For the remaining vacancies it is stated that candidates were called for the test in the ratio of 1:3 basing upon the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination. The APEPDCL stated that 624 eligible candidates were called for the pole climbing test accordingly. It is pointed out that the petitioner belonging to OC category secured 550 marks out of 650 marks in the qualifying examination and that the last OC candidate called for the pole climbing test had secured 556 marks out of 650 marks in the qualifying examination. The petitioner therefore did not come within the zone of consideration. The APEPDCL relied on its circular instructions for excluding the marks secured in the subject of social studies for arriving at the maximum marks in the qualifying examination. It is relevant to note that the above counter was filed along with a vacate stay application in the year 2007 itself. However, the petitioner has not chosen to rebut the contents thereof by filing a reply. Though Sri P. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought to assail the averments made in the counter affidavit stating that no particulars had been furnished as to how the APEPDCL followed the reservation policy in making the subject appointments and the details of OC candidates called for the pole climbing test, it is not open to the petitioner to initiate a roving enquiry into the matter at this late stage, all the more so, when he has not even chosen to refute the contents of the counter affidavit by filing a reply. As matters stand, it is clear from the material on record that the petitioner did not come within the zone of consideration to be considered as a fresh candidate for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman. He can therefore have no grievance against the APEPDCL in this regard. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 23.09.2010 Isn