HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.A.NO.1025/2009 DT. 7-12-2010 1. The A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., represented by its Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, and another …Appellants V. P.Laxmiranjam ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.A.NO.1025/2009 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the leaned single Judge dt.27-3-2008 passed in WP No.21176/2000, whereunder and whereby learned Judge allowed the writ petition directing the respondents therein, ie., appellants herein, to consider the case of the respondent herein ie., writ petitioner for appointment as Junior Lineman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The facts, which are not in dispute, are stated thus: The writ petitioner was appointed as Village Electricity Worker for Rangapur village, Karimnagar District in the year 1986 on a monthly salary of Rs.150/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.600/- per month. In the joint meeting held on 5-3-1996 between A.P. State Electricity Board and the three recognized unions, it was agreed inter alia to fill up 50% of the vacancies of Junior Lineman etc., from the cadre of Ex- casual labour, Village Electricity Workers, contract labour other than those engaged in 33 abolished categories in generating stations. Pursuant to the said agreement, BPMS No.36 dt.18-5-1997 was issued. As per the said proceedings, seniority list of Village Electricity Workers has been prepared by the second respondent and published in the newspapers. As per the seniority list of the Village Electricity Workers in the Karimnagar circle, out of 423 candidates, the writ petitioner stands at Serial No.53. He was called for interview on 19-9- 1997 for the post of Junior Lineman. Since he was not selected, he made several representations. Since no reply has been received, the writ petitioner filed WP No.13482/1999. The said writ petition has been disposed of by this court on 17-7-1999 directing the respondents therein to disclose the result of the interview of the petitioner held on 19-9-1997. Pursuant to the directions of this court dt. 17-7-1999, the second respondent through the impugned orders dt. 28-8-99 informed the petitioner that he was not on the rolls as on 18-5-1997, the date on which BPMS No.36 was issued, and as per the guidelines issued in BPMS Nos.36 dt.18-5- 1997 and 271 dt. 31-12-1997, the Village Electricity Workers working as on 18-5-1997 are only eligible for consideration and he is not eligible for appointment in APSEB (now A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., (for short “A.P. Transco”). Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The said writ petition was allowed on 27-3-2008 following the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.1071/2000 dt. 7-2-2007. This court while allowing WP No.1071/2000 held as follows: “In my opinion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed because the policy contained in B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-5-1997 does not restrict the zone of eligibility to the persons who were employed as contract labour as on 18-5-1997. The fallacious nature of the argument of Shri Samineni Kishore is evinced from the contents and tenor of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-5-1997, which speaks of the consideration of the candidature of Ex-Casual Labour, Village Electricity Worker and Contract Labour. When the policy envisages consideration of the candidature of ex-casual labour, it is impossible to visualise that a person must be in the employment of the Board for being considered for regular appointment. I am further of the view that the subsequent circulars issued by the Board including B.P.Ms.No.261, dated 19-12-1997 cannot be made basis for denying consideration to the persons like the petitioners who, admittedly, worked as contract labour. I am also of the view that the cut-off date specified in B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-5-1997 and other circulars issued by the Board has bearing only in the context of determination of total number of vacancies which could be filled by considering the candidature of eligible Ex- Casual Labour, Village Electricity Worker and Contract Labour and not for the purpose of determination of eligibility. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The failure of respondent No.3 to objectively consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment as Trainee Sub-Engineers is declared illegal and the said respondent is directed to consider the petitioners’ cases for appointment as Trainee Sub-Engineers. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the petitioners are found otherwise eligible and suitable and it is also discovered that any of the persons who were selected and appointed as Trainee Sub-Engineers was junior to them in the context of the seniority clause contained in B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-5-1997, then the petitioners or such of them who may be senior to the selected should be appointed as Trainee Sub-Engineer with retrospective effect i.e. from 17-12-1999. However, keeping in view the fact that the matter has remained pending before the Court for almost seven years, I deem it proper to direct that the persons who may be selected in terms of this order shall not be entitled to monetary benefits for the intervening period.” Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants while placing reliance on B.P.M.S.No.271 dt. 31-12- 1997, whereunder it was agreed to fill up 50% of the vacancies in initial recruitment cadres by Ex-casual labour, who obtained court orders, Village Electricity Workers and Contract Labour working in other than 33 abolished categories, contended that Village Electricity Workers who are working as on 18-5-1997 are only eligible for consideration and since the writ petitioner is not working as Village Electricity Worker as on the cut-off date and has been working as Extra Departmental Mail Carrier of Jeelguda Branch Post Office as per the certificate issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Huzurabad Sub-Division, Huzurabad dt. 7-8-1998, the writ petitioner is not entitled to be considered for Junior Lineman from the category of Village Electricity Workers. He further contended that this Court in WP No.1071/2000 without deciding the question whether the cut-off date fixed as 18-5-1997 is valid or not proceeded to allow the writ petition and therefore, the judgment rendered in WP No.1071/2000 cannot be made applicable to the three categories of persons. He further submitted that in Civil Appeal No.3215/2002, the Supreme Court by order dt. 18-4-2002 held that for regularization of service of employees, the Board was bound to follow the eligibility conditions laid down in its proceedings dt. 18-5-1997 in BPMS No.36 and dt. 31-12-1997 in BPMS.No.271. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner contended that BPMS No.271 dt. 31-12-1997 was issued after interview was conducted on 19-9-1997, therefore the same cannot be made applicable to the candidates who were already interviewed and as BPMS No.36 did not fix any eligibility criteria in service as on 18-5- 1997, the same cannot be made applicable to the writ petitioner. He further contends that altering eligibility criteria after interview cannot be made applicable to the writ petitioner. For the said proposition, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. NADU COMPUTER SC B. ED. G. T. WELF. SOCIETY VS. HIGHER SEC. SCL. COMPUTER TECH. ASSN[1]. It is not in dispute as per B.P.M.S.No.36 dt. 18- 5-1987, ex-casual labour who were already interviewed but failed in the test and given second chance and also obtained interim orders from he High Court for consideration are only eligible for selection against 50% of the existing vacancies in accordance with the guidelines contained in Memo No.DP/DM-I/A3/85-1, dt.25-9-1985 read with Memo NO.DP/DM-I/G2/2549/93 dt. 14-9-1993; and Village Electricity Workers shall be considered for selection and appointment against 50% of the existing vacancies subject to the condition that they are not eligible to derive any benefit for their earlier service and on selection they will not be appointed as fresh candidates in APSEB. For selection of candidates from Ex-casual labour, Village Electricity Workers and Contract labour other than those engaged in 33 abolished categories, age shall be reckoned as per the Board’s Service Regulations in force at the time of their first engagement as per para 5(A) of B.P.M.S No.36; and educational qualifications shall be as per Board’s Service Regulations in force at the time of their first engagement and there shall be no relaxation of educational qualifications or other relevant technical qualifications which are prescribed in the service regulations for such appointment, as per 5 (b) of B.P.M.S.No.36. The Supreme Court in K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr[2]. held that selection criteria has to be adopted and declared at the time of commencement of the recruitment process. The rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over. The view expressed in K.MANJUSREE (1 supra) has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in RAMESH KUMAR V. HIGH COURT OF DELHI[3] It is nowhere stated in B.P.M.S.No.36 that the candidates who are working as on the date of issuance of B.P.M.S.No.36 ie., 18-5- 1997 alone are eligible to be considered from the above three categories. Therefore, the case of the writ petitioner has to be considered as per the eligibility criteria prescribed on the date of interview ie., 19-9-1997. This court in WP No.1071/2000 rightly held that the policy contained in B.P.M.S.No.36 dt. 18-5-1997 does not restrict the zone of eligibility to the persons who were employed as contract labour as on 18-5-1997 and subsequent circulars issued by the Board including B.P.M.S.No.261 dt.19-12-1997 cannot be made basis for denying consideration to the persons like the petitioners, who admittedly worked as contract labour. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J _______________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J Date: 7-12-2010 kmr [1] 2009 (5) Supreme 421 [2] AIR 2008 SC 1470 [3] 2010(3) SCC 104