IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21607 of 1999 Between: K. Prathap Singh S/o. K. Isreal R/o Badampet, Guntur Mandal and District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer, A.P.S.E.B., TLC Division, Prakashnagar, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. 3 The Divisional Engineer, A.P.S.E.B., TLC Division, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.P.R.V.KADAMBARI FOR MR B.D.RAJU Counsel for respondents: MR G.VIDYASAGAR The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside letter dated 07-08-1998 issued by respondent No.2 and declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in considering the petitioner’s case in pursuance of his representation dated 10-09-1998 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is an ex-casual labour. As his request for absorption was not considered, he approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.No.13499 of 1996. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court along with another writ petition by order dated 11-07-1996. It is relevant to reproduce the said order herein below. “The grievance of the petitioners is that they are ex-casual labourers and are eligible for being considered for regular appointment in terms of Board’s Memo No.1138, dated 26-08-1985 and that the respondent-Board has in fact, conducted interviews for absorption of certain ex-casual labourers on 12-04-1996. The petitioners, however, were not called at the said interview and therefore this writ petition. The matter in question is covered by certain judgments of this Court issued in similar matters one such being W.P. No.11368 of 1996, dated 18-06-1996 and accordingly this writ petition, in my view, can be disposed of at the admission stage with certain directions as under: The respondents are directed to consider the eligibility of the petitioners as also their antecedents in accordance with the guidelines in Board’s Memo 1138 dated 26-08-1985 and all such other rules, regulations and circulars obtaining in the respondent-Organisation as may be relevant and applicable to the case and thereafter if found eligible to call the petitioners for interview for appointment/regularization subject however to there being vacancies existing or in any future vacancies that may arise in the respondent-Organization. With the directions as above, the writ petitions are disposed of.” In purported compliance of the said direction, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was called for interview on 08-12-1997 along with all relevant records for considering his request against 50% vacancies in the initial recruitment categories as per B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-05-1997 and that as per the select list, the petitioner’s turn for appointment against the 50% vacancies has not come up as all the vacancies were filled up by persons of higher merit. The grievance of the petitioner is that the direction given by this Court in the earlier writ petition was not complied with. I have heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. As could be seen from the direction given by this Court, which is reproduced above, the respondents were to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization as per Board’s Memo No.1138, dated 26-08- 1985. When the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board questioned similar directions, in Writ Appeal No.1183 of 1999, before a Division Bench of this Court, the said writ appeal was dismissed by rejecting the contention of the Board that the claims for regularization could be considered in the light of the subsequent proceedings, namely; BPMS No.36 dated 18-05-1997 which provided for earmarking of 50% vacancies. The Supreme Court in A.P.State Electricity Board and others vs. J.Venkateswara Rao and others[1], confirmed the said order of the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that this plea was not taken by the Board when the first writ petition was filed. The reasoning contained in the said judgment of the Supreme Court applies in all fours to this case. In the light of the specific direction given by this Court in the earlier writ petition, namely; W.P.No.13499 of 1996, the respondents have no option other than considering the petitioner’s case in terms of Memo No.1138 dated 26-08-1985 and not under BPMS No.36 as was done by the respondents. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s claim for regularization in terms of Memo No.1138 dated 26-08-1985, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a reasoned order and communicating the same to the petitioner. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 20th November, 2008 vrn [1] (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 116