IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 129 of 2006 Between: 1 G.Srinivasa Rao S/o.G.Subba Rao C/o.P.Sree Ramulu, H.No.29-2053, Near Servicing Point Srinivasa Water Servicing Point, Srinivasa Nagar, Vinukonda Post office, Guntur District, A.P. 2 Chappidi Ramu S/o.Koteswara Rao H.C.No.1031, Police Quarters, Chirala 523157 Prakasam District 3 Bhukya Hanumanthu naik S/o.Sri Sri Ramulu Naik C/o.Sri Y.Satya Sai (Sahara India), Pandiri Srinivas Rao Building, D.No.11-1-272/1 Buchammam Bazar, macherla (PO)(M.D.L), guntur District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Litd Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director 2 Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd, Tirupathi, rep.by its Chairman /Managing Director 3 Superintending Engieer, Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., Guntur .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an order direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioners as sub-Engineers according to B.P.Ms.No.271 dated 31.12.1997. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners worked as Contract Labour under a Labour Contractor, who was assigned some work by the erstwhile A.P.Electricity Board. In terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, and other orders issued by the Board, from time to time, the cases of the petitioners and number of others were considered for appointment against the 50% of the vacancies for which, direct recruitment was provided. However, due to lack of adequate number of vacancies, the petitioners could not be appointed. Placing reliance upon clause (6) of B.P.Ms.No.271, dated 31.12.1997, the petitioners contend that they are entitled to be appointed against future vacancies also. The respondents filed counter-affidavit, opposing the claim of the petitioners. Heard Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the cases of the petitioners were considered against the 50% of the vacancies, in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36. It was on account of lack of vacancies, that the petitioners could not be appointed. This Court is of the view that B.P.Ms.No.271, dated 31.12.1997, is not at all of any help to the petitioners. Clause (6) of the proceedings, on which reliance is placed by the petitioners, reads as under: “If any court directions are received after the interviews are conducted to consider the s of Ex-Casual Labours, Village Electricity Workers and Contract Labour, interviews may be conducted to such cases once in three months commencing from January, 1998, for consideration against the existing vacancies/future vacancies as the case may be.” From a perusal of this, it becomes clear that the object underlying it is only to honour the directions issued by the Court in favour of the candidates, who are otherwise denied the benefit of the scheme, and not interviewed. To ensure that the cases, in which the Court granted any relief to the candidates, who were not considered by the respondents, but granted relief by the Courts, are interviewed once in three months, and depending upon the out come of the interview, they are appointed against the existing, or future vacancies. The fact, that the consideration under the scheme must be only against 50% of the vacancies as on 18.05.1997, is clear from clause (5) of the same B.P.Ms. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners, that the candidates, who were considered and interviewed, but could not be appointed, due to lack of vacancies, must be considered against future vacancies; cannot be accepted. Petitioners rely upon the order, dated 31.08.2005, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.6239 of 2003 and batch and another, dated 28.03.2005, in W.P.No.2651 of 2004. It is true that the contention, similar to the one advanced on behalf of the petitioners was almost accepted in those two writ petitions. The fact remains that in W.A.No.700 of 2006, the order passed in W.P.No.2651 of 2004, was set aside. Hence, this Court does not find any basis to grant any relief to the petitioners. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.12.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ