IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21584 of 2000 Between: A. Narasimhulu S/o. Lingaiah RTS-B Station, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.GENCO Rep. by Chief Engineer, R&M,R.T.S. Ramagundam Karimnagar District 2 The A.P.GENCO, Rep. by Chairman& Managing Director Vidyutsoudha Hyderabad ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for absorption as per B.P.Ms.No.36, dt 18-5-97 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art,14 and 21 of the constitution of India apart from contrary to the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition)act and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner as regular employee with all attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. M. ADIKESAVULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 21584 of 2000 Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting his case for absorption into service of the respondent-Organization, in terms of B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997, as illegal and arbitrary. The predecessor of the respondent-Organization i.e., the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board issued B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997, to consider the cases of casual labour, contract labour and village electricity workers for absorption against 50% of the existing vacancies, while making recruitments on regular basis. The case of the petitioner is that he worked as Cleaner in Ramashakthi Canteen, Ramagundam Thermal Station from 27.02.1979 to 13.02.1982 and in spite of the same, his case was not considered and his claim for absorption was rejected. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that though the petitioner produced a certificate, showing that he worked in the Canteen from February 1979 to February 1982, the said certificate was not countersigned by any of the Officer i.e., the Convener or the Canteen Manager. It is further stated that, however, the case of the petitioner was considered and as he failed in the interview, his case for absorption was rejected. It is also stated that the respondents have issued B.P. Ms. No. 256, dated 30.08.1991, absorbing the Canteen staff who are on rolls as on the date of issuance of said B.P. Ms. No.256, but as the petitioner was not on rolls as on the said date, no orders for absorption of his services were issued. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Organization. In view of the orders issued by the Board in B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997, the only right accrued to the petitioner is for consideration of his case for absorption subject to fitment in the scheme notified by the respondents. The petitioner himself has filed a copy of the letter, dated 08.12.1999, issued to him by the respondents. A perusal of the said letter clearly shows that the case of the petitioner for absorption was considered and rejected on the ground that he failed in the interview in Identification (O&M Test) and Meter Reading subjects. When such is the case, it cannot be said that his case for absorption was not considered. Further, it is also stated that insofar as the Canteen workers are concerned, orders were issued in B.P. Ms. No. 256, dated 30.08.1991, and the benefit of absorption was extended only to those who are on rolls as on the said date. Even according to the certificate produced by the petitioner, he worked in the Canteen from February 1979 to February 1982. In that view of the matter, no direction as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition can be given. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner was already considered in terms of B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997 and rejected on the ground that he failed in the interview, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 12.02.2009 Nsr