IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15931 of 2002 Between: K.Syamala Devi, D/o. Parameswara Rao. R/o. 17-54, Vintapeta, Done Mandal, Kurnool. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. CMD, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.Transco, Kurnool-518 003. 3 The Chief Engineer (Operation), A.P.Transco, Vidyut Bhavan, Cuddapah. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 21.01.1998 said to have been served on the petitioner’s counsel on 17.04.2002. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to dispose of representation, dated 31.03.2000. The petitioner worked as an Ex-Casual Labour in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. She was interviewed for the post of Typist in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 in pursuance of order, dated 03.11.1997 in Writ Petition No.13798 of 1997. Her case for absorption was rejected by respondent No.2 vide his letter, dated 21.01.1998. She filed Writ Petition No.6332 of 2002, which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. Thereafter, she filed the present writ petition. She claimed that as the above-mentioned rejection order passed in 1998 was not served on her, she did not question the said order earlier. It is averred by her that the reasons contained in the impugned order, namely, she did not work under a licensed contractor cannot be sustained in view of the decision taken by this Court in a catena of cases that even persons, who worked under unlicensed contractors are also eligible for absorption. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the basic qualification for the post of Typist or Lower Division Clerk is intermediate and that for the post of Typist, apart from having intermediate qualification, a person must pass typewriting higher grade and that the petitioner was only holding SSC qualification apart from having typewriting higher grade. It is also stated that in the impugned order, an incorrect reason was given by oversight, as the petitioner was never supplied by any contractor. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Though there is variation in the stand of the respondents between the impugned order and the averments contained in the counter-affidavit on the reason for rejection of the petitioner’s claim, the petitioner cannot succeed in the writ petition unless she is able to show that she possesses the basic qualification of a pass in intermediate. The petitioner neither filed a rejoinder nor her counsel is present to plead her case that she holds the qualifications required for the purpose of appointment to the post of typist. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th JANUARY, 2009. kvni