IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22237 of 2000 Between: Narisetti Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Smbasiva Rao, R/o. Ponnur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., R/o. 4/7, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Rep. by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:Ms. N.USHA KIRAN FOR MR.W.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside letter bearing No.SE/O/GNT/Ad.C3/D.No.95/2000, dated 20.01.2000 issued by respondent No.1. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint him in any suitable post in respondent No.2 organisation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner worked as a contract labourer in respondent No.2 organisation. As his claim for absorption into the services of respondent No.2 was not considered, he filed Writ Petition No.7110 of 1998, which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 18.03.1998 with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption and not to disqualify him only on the ground that he was over-aged at the time of his initial appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee on 28.03.1998, along with others. Vide letter, dated 20.01.2000 issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner’s claim for regularization was rejected on the ground that he failed in Pole Climbing Test. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the said reason was incorrect, because no such test was conducted as regards the petitioner. In view of this submission, on 23.01.2009, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents to produce the record to show whether the Pole Climbing Test was conducted to the petitioner. Today, at the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel produced original record in the Court, a perusal of which shows that on 28.03.1998, the petitioner was not only interviewed but tests in Pole Climbing, Cycling, Meter Reading and Reading and Writing were conducted. The record reveals that while the petitioner passed in the three tests, he failed in the Pole Climbing Test. The result sheet also contains the signature of the petitioner. As Pole Climbing Test is a necessary qualification for appointing a person as Junior Lineman and as the petitioner has failed in the said test, I do not find any illegality in the impugned letter issued by respondent No.1 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Junior Lineman. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 6th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni