IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 963 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/03/2007 in WP NO : 7085 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd rep by Chairman & Managing Director Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills Hyderabad 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Anantapur 515 001 Anantapur District ..... APPELLANT(S) AND K. Venkata Ramana Prasad, S/o K. Srinivasulu R/o D. No. 28- 653-All, Behind Milk Dairy, New Revenue Colony, Anantapur 51500a, Antapur Distric .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants : MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent : MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.NO. 963 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) 1. This appeal is directed against the order of Hon’ble Sri G.S. Singhvi, the Chief Justice, (as His Lordship then was) by which His Lordship allowed the writ petition being WP No. 7085 of 2003 on 7.3.2007. 2. The facts of the case which led to filing of the writ petition are as follows, The respondent-writ petitioner possesses qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He worked as contract labour in Ananthapur Division of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short, “the Board”) from 5.4.1996 to 30.6.1998. The details of the agreements and the works in relation to which the respondent worked as contract labour are as under, Other than Generating stations: 5 . 4 . 1 9 9 6 to 30.4.1996 K 2 Agt.No.01/96- 97 of DE/O/ATP O p e r a t i o n and Maintenance of shift duties of 33/11 KV SS, Korrakodu o f R.West/Sub- Divison/Anantapur (ADE/R.West/Anantapur) 1 . 5 . 1 9 9 6 to 19.2.1997 L S Agt.No.01/96- 97 of DE/O/ATP -do- Generating stations (P.A.B.R.H.E.S./Anantapur): 2 0 . 2 . 1 9 9 7 to 31.3.1997 LS Agt.No.26/96-97 Providing Assistance in Operation and Maintenance of 2 x 10 MW Generating Station equipment at PABRHES 1 . 4 . 1 9 9 7 to 31.5.1997 LS Agt. No. 09/97-98 -do- 1 . 6 . 1 9 9 7 to 30.9.1997 LS Agt.No.09/97-98 -do- 1 . 1 0 . 1 9 9 7 to 31.3.1998 LS Agt.No.09/97-98 -do- 1 . 4 . 1 9 9 8 to 30.6.1998 LS Agt.No. 04/98-99 -do- 3. In furtherance of the policy of the appellants, contained in B.P.Ms.No. 36, dated 18.5.1997, the respondent was called for interview on 3.11.1997 for regular appointment. Under the B.P.Ms. No. 36, dated 18.5.1997 50% of the posts in the cadre of Sub-Engineers had to be filled up from in-service candidates. As mentioned above, the respondent has qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and he has worked in Ananthapur Division continuously from 5.4.1996 to 30.6.1998. He accordingly appeared in the interview and was shown at Sl.No. 12 in the list of in-service candidates. By the impugned order dated 7.2.2000, however, his claim for appointment as Sub-Engineer was rejected on the ground that on 6.12.1996 he was not on rolls in generating station and further on 18.5.1997 he was also not on rolls in stations other than generating stations and thereby his pre-requisite for absorption having not been fulfilled, he was denied consideration of his candidature. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed the writ petition. 4. On contest, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by directing the appellants herein to re- consider the case of the respondent for appointment as Sub-Engineer by treating him eligible for that post and pass appropriate order within two months keeping in view the fact that similarly situated persons had been appointed as regular Sub-Engineers vide order dated 17.12.1999. The appellants have questioned the said order in this writ appeal. While admitting this writ appeal, by order dated 17.11.2008 the implementation of the order in the writ petition was stayed. The respondent filed a vacate stay petition being W.A.V.M.P No. 369 of 2009 seeking vacation of the said interim order. Since the issue involved in the interim application and the main writ appeal being one and the same, we have heard the writ appeal itself with the consent of both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the respondent did not fulfill the requirement of having worked in appropriate places namely generating stations and other than generating stations on the relevant dates, and therefore his case could not be considered. He also contends that the action of the appellants is strictly in accordance with the B.P Ms. No. 36, dated 18.5.1997, and as such he contends that the respondent is not entitled to any relief. The learned counsel for the respondent–writ petitioner, however, supports the impugned order by contending that the respondent has worked at both the stations i.e., generating stations as well as other than generating stations for different periods as mentioned above and the basic requirement of working at either of stations having been fulfilled by the respondent, there is no impediment for considering his case for appointment as Sub-Engineer and submits that the learned single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. 6. We have considered the aforesaid submissions. It is evident from the record that the respondent had requisite qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and he worked in other than generating stations from 5.4.1996 to 19.2.1997 against K2 Agreement No. 1/96-97 of Divisional Engineer, Operation, Anantapur and from 1.5.1996 to 19.2.1997 against LS Agreement Nos. 1/96-97 of Divisional Engineer, Operation, Anantapur. He also worked in generating stations at Ananthapur Division from 20.2.1997 to 31.3.1997 against LS agreement No. 26/96- 97, from 1.4.1997 to 31.5.1997 against LS Agreement No. 09/97-98, from 1.6.1997 to 30.9.1997 against LS agreement No. 09/97-98, from 1.10.1997 to 31.3.1998 against LS agreement No. 25/97-98 and from 1.4.1998 to 30.6.1998 against LS agreement No. 4/98-99. Thus the respondent has continuously worked without any interruptions from 5.4.1996 to 30.6.1998. In response to queries asked by certain Superintending Engineers, the AP TRANSCO issued a clarificatory memo on 3.12.1999. In response to query No. 8 that “In the absence of proof of evidence in the field officers, if the individual working under a contractor in a different circle of the same zone attended interview in another operation circle can be considered in the other circle or not”, the following clarification has been given, “The unit of operation for the purpose of appointment is the circle. Therefore, the contract labour shall be considered for appointment only in the circle where he is engaged to work against the 50% vacancies of that circle only.” Thus the respondent has worked for the above periods continuously within the control of Superintending Engineer, Operations, who was in charge of Ananthapur Division. Further the Chief Engineer Electricity, Operation, A.P. Transco, Anantapur addressed a letter to the Additional Secretary, A.P., Transco confirming that the respondent was engaged continuously at APSEB for the period from 5.4.1996 to 30.6.1998, both at generating stations and other than generating stations and recommending his case for appointment. Further the Chief Engineer under his letter dated 8.12.1999 further recommended his case to the Additional Secretary, A.P. Transco and sought suitable instructions for appointment of the respondent to absorb him as Sub-Engineer in one of the existing vacancies. It is also to be noted that working at generating stations and other than generating stations by a contract labour was entirely for the head of the unit and according to the directions of unit head, the respondent has worked at both the stations where he was assigned to work. The fact, however, remains that he has continuously worked for the aforesaid period under the control of unit officer of Ananthapur Division and his case was recommended by the Superintending Engineer as well as Chief Engineer. 7. In the light of the aforesaid factual background, it cannot be said that the respondent has not fulfilled the requisite qualification. The learned single Judge has, therefore, rightly allowed the writ petition and the very intent and purpose of the appellants’ board’s policy under B.P.Ms. No. 36, dated 18.5.1997 would be frustrated, if pedantic interpretation as is given by the appellants is to be applied. We, therefore, see no valid ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 8. The writ appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt. .4.2009 KR ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {SPJS}