IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30687 of 2011 Between: G.Gnanaprakash … Petitioner and The A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30687 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the letter dated 22.06.2007 and not considering the representation of the petitioner made on 05.05.2010 for appointing him as Contract Junior Lineman pursuant to the revised notification dated 20.10.2006 issued by the 1st respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said letter and direct the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case for appointment as Contract Junior Lineman based on his contract labour service by considering the EPF account slips in his name for the period from 06.06.2006 to 20.10.2006 and his success in the pole climbing test held on 23.04.2007 with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification dated 06.06.2006 and revised notification dated 20.10.2006, the petitioner submitted his application for the post of Junior Lineman and appeared for the test being conducted by the authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that the 2nd respondent vide his memo dated 02.12.2006 requested the concerned D.Es. for verification of service particulars of the list of contract labour and the petitioner’s name was figured at Sl.No.161 and thereafter, he was informed that the concerned D.E. submitted the particulars of the petitioner along with his EPF account number to the 2nd respondent. While so, the 2nd respondent issued impugned letter dated 22.06.2007 rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment as JLM on the ground that he has not worked as contract labour during the period from 06.06.2006 to 20.10.2006 as per the notification. The claim of the petitioner is that during the relevant period, he worked as contract labour and he was allotted E.P.F. account number. Bringing all the facts to the notice of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner made a representation dated 05.05.2010 requesting him to consider the EPF account slips. But the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders on his representation. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he worked for the relevant period, his case was rejected on the ground that he did not work as contract labour during the period mentioned hereinabove. Further, in support of his claim, he stated to have submitted EPF slips along with his representation dated 05.05.2010 and the respondents did not consider the same. When it is the specific claim of the petitioner that he worked for the relevant period and he submitted material evidence to that effect and without considering the same, rejecting the claim of the petitioner is bad and illegal. Therefore, the impugned letter dated 22.06.2007 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the relief sought for in the writ petition, the impugned letter dated 22.06.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted to 2nd respondent for re-considering the case of the petitioner, based on the representation, stated to have been made by him enclosing the evidence to his claim, and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 22.11.2011 LSK