IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20475 of 2007 Between: 1 K. Sunil Kumar, S/o. K. Anandam, R/o. H.No. 28/1051/46, Saibabanagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2 G. Lal Kumar, S/o. G.P. Lal Swamy, R/o. H.No. 28-5-2, Noonepalli, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 3 M. Maqbul Hussain, S/o. Mahaboob Basha, R/o. H.No. 29/178, S.B.I. Colony Road, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 4 Y. Rama Chandrudu, s/o. Yerranna, Panyam Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. 5 K. Ramudu, S/o. K. Yerrappa, R/o. H.No. 28/8953-D, Near Govt. Hospital, Noonepalli, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Energy Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. of A.P. Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 3 The Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. of A.P. Rep by its Chief General Manager (H.R.D)., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 4 The Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. of A.P. Rep by its Superintending Engineer (Operation), Kurnool Circle, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Adm/D.No. 1701/2007, dated 7th July, 2007 rejecting the claim of the petitioners in pursuance of the Clause 6(b) of the revised notification as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and struck down the clause 6II (b) of the revised notification dt. 20-10-2006 consequently directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners in the posts of Junior Linemen on contract basis in the existing vacant posts in the 4th respondent circle and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.N.BHUPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT. Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4 : MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 5 in number, assailing the validity of Clause 6(iv)(b) of the Notification dated 20.10.2006 issued by the respondents Corporation. 2. The petitioners passed SSC. They joined Industrial Training Institute (Electrical Course) and obtained provisional National Trade Certificates. The respondents 2 to 4 Corporation issued notification, dated 08.06.2006, inviting applications for selection of candidates for the posts of Junior Linemen on contractual basis, incorporating the parameters of selection. The petitioners submitted their applications. While the matter stood thus, the respondents 2 to 4 Corporation issued revised notification dated 20.10.2006, completely changing the method of selection. It was mentioned that the said notification is in continuation of the earlier notification, dated 08.06.2006. The petitioners challenged the selection process adopted by the Respondents 2 to 4 Corporation in the revised notification, particularly, with regard to the Clause 6(iv)(b) giving preference to the contract labour. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 27.09.2007. An interim order also came to be passed on the even date vide WPMP No.26486 of 2007. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for APCPDCL appearing for the respondents Corporation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the validity of Clause 6(iv)(b) of the Notification dated 20.10.2006 issued by respondents Corporation came up for consideration in W.P.No.19051 of 2008 and batch and the learned Single Judge of this Court held that mere fact that an individual came to be engaged by a Labour Contractor, cannot, by itself, be treated as a factor, to enable him to steal march over by other candidates, irrespective of the merit held by him. Much emphasis has been laid on paras.29 and 30 of the common judgment passed in W.P.No.19051 of 2008 and batch, which read as hereunder: 29) So far as the preference to be given to the Contract Labour is concerned, the mere fact that an individual came to be engaged by a Labour Contractor, cannot, by itself, be treated as a factor, to enable him to steal march over by other candidates, irrespective of the merit held by him. A structured formula to recognize the experience of the Contract Labour can also be evolved in such a way, as not to overshadow the merit in its entirety. Marks for each year of experience as Contract Labour as may be certified by the concerned Superintending Engineer, subject to a maximum of (3) or (5) with corresponding relaxation of age, subject to holding I.T.I. qualification can also be considered. Such marks can be added to the percentage of marks in the I.T.I., for the limited purpose of selection. To compensate the applicants, who were not selected on the basis of the changed criteria, age relaxation to the extent of one year for those, who applied in response to the notification dated 08.06.2006 can also be considered. So far as the reservations are concerned, the Companies must prepare separate list for the respective categories in accordance with the merit, and candidate must be drawn from the respective lists for the purpose of appointment, to the extent of reservation. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed, a) holding that the action of the respondents in altering the criteria for selection, after the commencement of the selection process, and incorporating the conditions, providing for an absolute priority in favour of Contract Labour; as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. b) Directing the respondents, i) to consider the feasibility of evolving a structured formula, to provide precedence to the Contract Labour, by awarding one mark for each year, of completed service, as Contract Labour, in a work, for which deployment of such candidates is stipulated, and subject to certification of the same by the Superintending Engineer; not exceeding five marks; and relaxing the qualifications as to age, subject to a maximum of three years, and to ensure that the merit so worked alone shall be the criteria for selection. ii) to restrict the tenure of the candidates, appointed in pursuance of the notifications, dated 08.06.2006 and 20.10.2006, to one year, mentioned in the respective orders; or not beyond 30th July, 2008. iii) to implement the Rule of Reservation by preparing separate lists of candidates of the respective categories, and by drawing them for appointment, in accordance with their respective percentages of reservation. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation submits that the respondents as well as aggrieved parties, filed appeals against the common judgment passed in W.P.No.19051 of 2008 and batch and the appeals being W.A.Nos.604, 605 of 2008 are pending. 7. This Court in a batch of writ petitions being W.P.No.19051 of 2008 held that mere fact of an individual came to be engaged by a Labour Contractor, cannot, by itself, be treated as a factor, to enable him to steal march over the other candidates, irrespective of the merit held by him. 8. In view of the common judgment, dated 02.05.2008 passed in W.P.No.19051 of 2008 and batch (K.Jangaiah v. APCPDCL, rep. by its Chief General Manager (Comml.), Hyderabad & Ors.) of the learned Single Judge, where similar issue is involved, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the common Judgment dated 02.05.2008 passed in W.P.No.19051 of 2008 and batch. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:19th March, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}