IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.22141 and 23841 of 2002 WRIT PETITION No.22141 of 2002 Between: M.Sudhakar. … Petitioner And A.P.Transmission Corporation Ltd., Reptd., by its Chairman-cun-Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents WRIT PETITION No.23841 of 2002 Between: P.Balanaganna. … Petitioner And A.P.Transmission Corporation Ltd., Reptd., by its Chairman-cun-Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None. (Both the cases) Counsel for the respondents: Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy. (Both the cases) This Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- These two Writ Petitions are filed by two individuals, who claimed to have worked as contract labourers, claiming absorption in the regular vacancies earmarked under B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-5- 1997. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.22141 of 2002 earlier filed Writ Petition No.1748 of 1999 and in pursuance of the directions given in the said Writ Petitions, his case was considered and rejected by respondent No.2. Likewise, in pursuance of the directions said to have been issued by this Court, the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.23841 of 2002 was also considered and rejected. These rejection orders are questioned in these two Writ Petitions. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. From a reading of the impugned rejection orders, it is evident that the cases of the petitioners for absorption were rejected on the ground that the certificates produced by them relating to their past service do not relate to the works pertaining to APSEB/APTRANSCO. I have perused the xerox copies of the two certificates, which are purported to be the service certificates issued by S & S Enterprises and C.Narasa Reddy, Contractor, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioners worked for the period specified therein. Nothing is stated in the said certificates that the work was rendered in connection with the services of the respondents. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioners asserted that the certificates were counter-signed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Stores, A.P.TRANSCO, Sangareddy. In my considered view mere counter signature of an officer of the respondents does not lend credence to the purported service certificates unless they contain the required information showing that the petitioners have worked in connection with the services of the respondents. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the impugned orders of rejection. Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:30-1-2009 MNR