IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 27362 of 1998 Between: 1 S.Sivanjaneya, S/o. Venkateswarlu, r/o. 10-4-118, Mallikarjunapeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Ch. Raju, S/o. Kotaiah, R/o. Charistian Palem, Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The A.P. State Electricity Board, rep.by its Member Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendign Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.S.E.B., Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 Transmission Corparation, of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., rep.by its M.D., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. R3 is impleaded as per Court order dt. 23/4/99 in W.P.M.P.4461/99. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the entire record pertaining to the interviews of the Village Electricity Workers held on 2-4-1998 and 3-4-1998 by the 2nd respondent and declare the proceedings No.SE(O)/OGL/Adm./D.No.3844/98 dt. 22- 4-1998 and SE(O)/OGL/Adm/D.No.3842 dt. 22-4-1998 as illegal, contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners on regular basis along with other candidates whose services were regularised in pursuance of the interviews held on 2- 4-1998 and 3-4-1998 with all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.W.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: The two petitioners herein have been subjected to the selection process to consider their candidature for absorption, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.8460 of 1998 and W.P. No.24205 of 1997 dated 27-03-1998 and 23-09- 1997 respectively. For the purpose of absorption, the candidates have been subjected to certain tests to ascertain their ability to climb poles and their ability and capacity to read and write. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, the respondents found him to have failed in the pole climbing test, while the second petitioner has been declared to have been failed in the test conducted to ascertain his capacity to read and write. Except the following stray sentences in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that “In fact for 18 years he worked as Village Electricity Worker and discharged duties effectively. Hence, the ground of failing in the pole climbing and reading and writing tests is baseless.”, there is no other material on record to ascertain with any reasonable sense of assurance that the impugned orders have been passed mechanically by the respondents, whereas the petitioners are capable of clearing the tests mentioned supra. The pleadings set-forth in this regard being inadequate and that the petitioners have not asserted their own capacity to clear the pole climbing test or the test to read and write, they cannot make out any grievance with regard to their non-selection. The respondents are bound to ensure certain basic safety norms and standards at the work place. There is an inherent danger involved, if men, who are not familiar and fully conversant with the risks and dangers involved at a place of work, are deputed, where they will have to deal with electric energy, it will cause enormous risk and damage to the organization itself. Therefore, it will be difficult for the Court to describe the tests conducted by the respondents viz., the pole climbing test and the test to ascertain ability to read and write are whimsical or arbitratous. Nowhere the writ petitioners did assert that they have been climbing poles as part of performance of their duties as Village Electricity Workers. In the absence of any such material, no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the respondents. The failure of the petitioners to come through the tests prescribed for the selection process cannot be characterized as the result of a mechanical process and not the result of actual assessment of the ability of the petitioners in the tests conducted. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition and hence it is dismissed, but, without costs. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. 10th March, 2008. skmr