IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13799 of 1999 Between: 1 B.Sreenivas Rao, S/o. B.Ramaiah R/o. 2nd Lane, Gopal Nagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 G.Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Pthurajupalem, Santhapeta Post, Ongole, Prakasam District. W.P is Dismissed as withdrawn in so far as Petitioner.No.2 is concerned as per Court Order,dt. 21/2/03, 3 V.S.Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy, R/o. 4th Lane, Ramnagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 A.P.Transco, Rep by its Managing Director, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Electrical, Nellore Zone, A.P.Transco, Nellore. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) A.P.Transco, Ongole, Prakasam District. .....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 a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings dated 22.4.1998 of respondent as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners in the services of Corporation ignoring the fact whether the respective contractor had licence or not and whether the petitioner could climb the poles or not; and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR.S.RAVINDRANATH The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 22.4.1998 issued by the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners into the service of the respondent-Corporation as per B.P.Ms. No.36, dated 18.5.1997. The facts are not much in dispute. According to the petitioners, they are all graduates and were engaged through a contractor in the respondent-AP Transco for attending to various works including clerical job. Earlier, when their cases were not considered for absorption, they filed WP No. 23290 of 1997 and the same was disposed of on 23.9.1997 directing the respondents therein to consider case of the petitioners as per B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.5.1997. According to the petitioners, they were permitted to appear for the pole-climbing test and were subjected to the same. Thereafter, their cases were rejected under the impugned proceedings stating that they failed in the pole climbing test and further they were not engaged through a licenced contractor. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been attending to a job of clerk and though they are all entitled for consideration as per B.P.Ms. No.36, dated 18.5.1997, they were not called for interview for clerical job. Since, they were attending to clerical job, the question of passing pole climbing test does not arise. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that petitioners were also not entitled for consideration on the ground that all of them were not in service as on 18.5.1997 apart from the fact that they failed in pole climbing test and they were also not engaged through a licenced contractor. Learned counsel for the petitioner also conceded that the petitioners were not in service as on 18.5.1997 and they also failed in the pole climbing test. In view of these admitted facts, the petitioners are not entitled for consideration for absorption as per the scheme evolved in B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.5.1997 and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents committed any error in rejecting the cases of the petitioners. As such, no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, this will not preclude the petitioners from making a representation before the respondents seeking employment, in any future schemes if any evolved by the respondents. ___________ 21-04-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 A.P.Transco, Rep by its Managing Director, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Electrical, Nellore Zone, A.P.Transco, Nellore. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) A.P.Transco, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4.2CD copies