THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 20131 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Junior Lineman on the ground of not having Employees’ Provident Fund (E.P.F.) Account in his name, and consequently direct the respondents to consider his case for selection and appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk or any other suitable post. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, may be stated as follows: The petitioner passed 10th class. He also passed I.T.I. Electrical course which of two years’ duration. Thereafter, he worked a Contract Labourer from August, 1996 to June, 1997; from August, 1997 to March, 1998, and from February, 2000 to 2005-2006. While working as Contract Labourer, he completed B.A., M.A. and M.B.A. As per the call letter of first respondent, he attended interview/pole climbing test in his office on 30.12.2006 at 9.00 AM for selection and appointment to the post of Junior Lineman and successfully completed it. But, he could not be selected for the said post due to lack of E.P.F. Account in his name. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. The respondent filed counter stating as follows: During the period from August, 1997 to March, 1998, the petitioner was given work on K2 agreement as a Contractor and to execute work, and bills were paid to him for his work as a contractor and executor, but not as a Contract Labourer, and he has no right to claim as an experienced Contract Labourer. The petitioner had not worked in the respondent-corporation as Contractor Labourer and so, he was not allotted E.P.F. Number. One of the conditions to be considered for the vacant posts in various cadres, as decided by the erstwhile APSEB in terms of BP Ms. No.36, dated 18.5.1997, to be filled from experienced candidates is that he should be serving Contract Labourer with needed evidence of E.P.F. number. Since the petitioner had not worked anywhere in the respondent-corporation as a Contract Labourer, he does not possess experience evidenced through Sub- Station Log Books, E.P.F. Account, etc. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the certificate issued by the respondents would clearly go to show that the petitioner was working as a Contract Labourer in the office of the respondents, and that insisting for production of E.P.F. Account Number, the case of the petitioner has not been considered, and that the mater is squarely covered by an unreported decision dated 06.10.2007 of this Court in Writ Petition No.7497 of 2007, and therefore, he prays to give direction to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Junior Lineman. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner never worked as a Contract Labourer under the respondent-corporation at any point of time, and the certificates produced by the petitioners are only counter- signed by the officials of the respondent-Corporation, to show that he might have worked under a Contractor, and so, the judgment of this court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application, and that all the posts in pursuance of the Notification, have been filled up and so the question of considering the case of the petitioner does not arise, and hence, she prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents with regard to period of contract the petitioner worked, were counter-signed by the official of respondent- corporation, and therefore he is deemed to be a Contract Labourer working in the respondent-corporation. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner never worked as a Contract Labourer and he has not produced any document to show that he was appointed by the respondent corporation as a Contract Labourer. This court is unable to accept the contention of the petitioner’s counsel, because no appointment order has been filed by the petitioner to show that he was appointed by the respondent-corporation. The certificates produced by the petitioner are issued by the Contractor. No doubt, the same are were counter-signed by the official of the respondent-Corporation, but, that does not mean that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent-corporation as Contract Labourer. Such is the case, when the petitioner had not been appointed as a Contract Labourer, the question of considering his case to the post of Junior Lineman, does not arise. 7. No doubt, in the unreported decision dated 06.10.2007 of this Court in Writ Petition No.7497 of 2007, this court directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioners therein for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman (contract), without insisting upon production of E.P.F. account number, if they satisfy all other criteria laid down by the respondents. The said decision has no application to the facts of the present case, as that is a case where the petitioners therein were working as Contract Labourers with various sections of the office of the Divisional Engineer. In this case, the petitioner is not shown to be working as Contract Labourer in any of the offices of the respondent-corporation. Further more, as in pursuance of the Notification, all the posts have been filled, the question of giving any directions in the facts and circumstances of the case, may not be proper. 8. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 13.06.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 20131 OF 2010 13.06.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 20131 OF 2010 13.06.2011 Between: Mohammed Abdul Saleem …Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Electrical, APEPDCL, Eluru & others …Respondents