HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.2265 of 2011 Date of Order:26.04.2011 Between: Santi Prasad and another ..Petitioner and The Co-operative Electric Supply Society Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PEITTION No.2265 of 2011 ORDER :- This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus calling for the records relating to issuance of impugned Memo No.CESS/ESTT/D.No.1322/2010, dated 18.12.2010, and to declare the said memo as illegal and arbitrary and the same is passed in total non- application of mind and consequently, direct the respondent authority to admit the petitioners into duty as yearly Contract helpers and continue to engage them. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioners are appointed as helpers on yearly contract basis and are working as such for over a period of 10 and 13 years respectively, without there being any blemish in discharging their duties. Thereafter the petitioners, who are figured as accused Nos.3 and 7 respectively, in Crime No.318 of 2010 of Sircilla Police Station, Karimnagar District registered for the offences under Sections 148, 386 read with 149 IPC, were arrested by the police and remanded to judicial custody and thereafter they were released on bail. Later, when the petitioners approached the respondent society to admit them into duty, the respondent has not admitted them into duty. Mere registration of a criminal case against the petitioners is not a ground to deny the benefit of employment, when the petitioners are poor persons working since a long time. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondent filed a counter stating that the petitioners have not given any information with regard to their arrest by the police and release on bail in crime No.318 of 2010. The petitioners are not permanent employees in the society and they were working under contract basis. As the petitioners were involved in the criminal case and were in the judicial custody for more than 48 hours, the impugned order is passed and, therefore, they cannot be taken as Helpers on yearly basis and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. No doubt the petitioners are working with the respondent- Corporation for the last 10 and 13 years respectively and in connection with a criminal case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 386, 149 of IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for more than 48 hours. The petitioners were figured as A3 and A7 respectively in the crime. The allegation is that they intentionally made extortion to the complainant. As some of the persons in the unlawful assembly were armed with deadly weapons, Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act has been included in the crime. Since Section 149 of IPC is also included, for the purpose of this case, it can be said that prima facie the petitioners have participated in the commission of offence along with other members of unlawful assembly. Even assuming for a moment that no specific overtacts are attributed against the petitioners, that itself is not a ground to continue the petitioners in service on yearly contract basis. Once the petitioners are shown to be the members of the unlawful assembly, it is irrelevant with regard to the attribution of specific overtacts against any individual. Therefore, in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioners to the effect that they along with other accused committed extortion by putting the complainant in crime No.318 of 2010 of Sircilla police station in fear of death or of grevious hurt to that person and they are shown as accused Nos.3 and 7 respectively in a criminal case, a positive direction cannot be given to the respondents to appoint them on yearly contract basis. Therefore, I see no ground to issue a writ of Mandamus. 5. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the respondent in taking the petitioners on yearly contract basis, in case the petitioners were found not guilty in the criminal case. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 26, 2011 Lmv