IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1361 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/04/2008 in WP NO : 6220 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Mahabubnagar, APCPDCL, Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar, ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Md. Jahangir, S/o. Md.Chotumiya, Fuse of call & maintenance, Kushaiguda Section, Sainikpuri sub- Dvision, Medchal Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2 AP TRANSCO, Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, APCPDCL, Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.VENKATESWARA RAO The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WA {LS} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.1361 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, by the appellant-Corporation, is directed against the orders of the learned Single Judge, dated 01-04-2008 in W.P.No.6220 of 2008. 2. The respondent-writ petitioner was engaged as a contract labour in relation to the work, entrusted by the Corporation to the labour contractor. While so, a notification dated 08-06-2006 was issued for recruitment of Junior Linemen which was revised and the cut off date was fixed as 14-11-2006. 3. The respondent-writ petitioner has submitted an application for the post of Junior Lineman and pursuant to the call letter, he appeared before the selection committee, on 04-06-2007 at Mahaboobnagar, where he was directed to participate in the pole climbing test up to the top of the pole, but the petitioner climbed up to half of the pole. 4. It is not out of place to mention that when he was working with the contractor, on 28-04-2007, while he was attending the fuse off call complaints in Kushaiguda section, he met with an accident and sustained severe burn injuries due to 11 KV electrical accident and he was hospitalized and discharged only on 14-05-2007 after a lengthy treatment. Therefore, he could not climb the pole up to top of the pole. 5. Considering the hardship of the petitioner and the honest and sincere services rendered by the petitioner, the Divisional Engineer, Electrical, Operation, Medchal, APCPDCL, has written a letter on 30-05-2007 to the S.E., Operations, RR Circle (North), asking him to exempt the petitioner from pole climbing test at the time of selections in view of the fact that he met with an accident while discharging duties, and in-turn, the S.E., Operations, by his letter dated 31-05-2007 addressed to S.E., Operations Circle, Mahaboobnagar, who is the appointing authority, asking for exemption of pole climbing test. But since the said letters written by the higher officials were not considered by the respondents, he could not get the appointment. 6. The learned Counsel for the Corporation contends that all the vacancies have been filled up pursuant to the recruitment and there are no vacancies existing and therefore, the respondent-writ petitioner could not be accommodated even if he is permitted to undergo the pole climbing test and he is successful in the test. 7. We have carefully gone through the recommendations as aforementioned and the hardship caused to the petitioner. Considering the same, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that no prejudice would be caused to any one, in case, the respondent- writ petitioner is subjected to pole climbing test and therefore his case may be considered against any existing or immediately arising future vacancies as according to the petitioner, he has recovered from the injuries after obtaining treatment and fit to undergo the pole climbing test. 8. The learned Single Judge has categorically stated in the order under challenge that the case of the petitioner shall be considered subject to pole climbing test either in the existing vacancies or in the vacancies which may arise in the immediate future. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Corporation that there are no existing vacancies has no merit. The case of the petitioner can be considered in the vacancies which may arise in the immediate future. There is no ambiguity in the order of the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in the appeal. 9. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY _____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR November 04, 2008 Kvr