THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 21003 of 1999 Oral order: The petitioner claims to have worked as contract labour with the respondents-APSEB. The respondents considered his case for absorption/selection in the light of B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997, but rejected his case on the ground that he was not engaged by licenced contractors. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSEB. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted to by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents- APSEB that having regard to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd., Hyd. V. R. Venkataramana[1], wherein it was held that restricting the selection only to contract labourers employed by a licenced contractor under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 , is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who worked with unlicenced contractors are also entitled to consideration of their cases for absorption/selection in the light of B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997. In view of the above, it has to be held that the action of the respondents-APSEB in not considering the case of the petitioner for absorption/selection in the light of B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997, on the ground that he was not engaged by licenced contractors, is illegal and arbitrary, and it is accordingly held so. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption/selection in the light of B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997, without referring to the fact that they worked as contract labour under unlicenced contractors. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA,J. Date: 04th January, 2007 ISL/KSR [1] 1999 (3) ALD 337 (DB)