THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1531 OF 2009 Dated: 21.12.2009 Between 1. Ch. Narsimulu and another. … Petitioners And 1. The APCPDCL, Red Hills, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director., and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1531 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioners herein worked as contract labour in the A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited for a considerable period. It is claimed that they are eligible for appointment as Junior Linemen and accordingly pursuant to the notification dated 6.6.2006 issued by the respondents inviting the applications for filling up the Junior Linemen on contract basis, both the petitioners applied for the same. Thereafter a revised notification was issued on 21.10.2006 and it is claimed that the petitioners have satisfied the eligibility criteria even under the said notification. The petitioners also attended the interview held on 6.6.2007 and also passed the pole climbing test. However, their cases were not considered and they were not appointed against the vacancies available. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which the petitioners possessed the necessary qualification and they were also successful in pole climbing test is not disputed. However, it is stated that the last candidate one S. Venu Gopal whose date of birth is 02.03.1981 has been appointed under BC-D reservation quota as contract Junior Linemen whereas the 1st petitioner’s date of birth is 15.06.1982. It is contended that preference was rightly given to the person with earlier date of birth and therefore the 1st petitioner’s claim for appointment is not tenable. So far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, it is stated that his candidature is rejected since he failed to produce the service certificate issued by the concerned Divisional Engineer. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Since the 2nd petitioner’s candidature has already been rejected, if aggrieved, it is for him to challenge the same by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law and no relief can be granted in this writ petition. So far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, it is clear from the counter-affidavit that his candidature was not considered on the ground of the recruitment policy that where more than one contract labour applies for the post the contract labour with earlier date of birth will be given preference for selection. In identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1434 of 2008 and batch, dated 10.11.2009 held that such a preference given by the respondents on the basis of the age is illegal. The batch of cases was disposed of by the Division Bench by common judgment dated 10.11.2009 with directions as under : “Therefore, taking the aforesaid undertakings of the Appellant-Distribution Companies on record, we direct the Appellant-Companies to appoint all the Respondents/Writ petitioners, who submitted their applications pursuant to the notifications dated 8.6.2006 and the other dates, issued by the various appellant companies, and who have passed the pole climbing test and fulfilled the other eligibility criterion for appointment as Junior Linemen, without reference to and without insisting upon the fulfilment of Condition No.6(iv)(c) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We also make it clear that this direction would be applicable to all those candidates, who have not approached this Court but who had applied in pursuance of the aforementioned notifications, subject to passing of the pole climbing test and fulfillment of eligibility criteria. We however make it clear that the persons who have not applied in pursuance of the notifications dated 8.6.2006 and the other dates and who have not subjected themselves to the selection process have no right whatsoever to claim that they are entitled for such appointment. We also make it clear that all the selected and appointed respondents-writ petitioners and other similarly situated would be entitled for all benefits on par with the persons who have been appointed as Junior Linemen as per Condition No.6 (iv) (c) of the revised notification, including regularization of their services as per rules and policy.” The above decision of the Division Bench squarely applies to the present case and therefore the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the 1st petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1434 of 2008 and batch, dated 10.11.2009. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 21.12.2009 gbs