IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.16283 of 2000 Between: Morla Raja Babu and four others. … Petitioners And A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., (Formerly known as APSEB), rep. by its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri B.P.Raju. Counsel for the respondents: Sri P.Balarami Reddy, Standing Counsel for APTRANSCO. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 13-1-2000 issued by respondent No.3, whereby he rejected the claims of the petitioners for absorption in the regular vacancies in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-5-1997. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners claimed to have worked as contract labourers with the respondents since prior to 18-5-1997, the date on which B.P.Ms.No.36 was issued providing for absorption of three categories of daily wage workers, including contract labourers, against 50% vacancies earmarked in respect of certain categories of posts. On an earlier occasion, the case of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that they were not engaged by licenced contractors. In pursuance of order dated 20-4-1998 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10689 of 1998, the cases of the petitioners were considered afresh and rejected by separate communications issued on 13-1-2000. With regard to petitioners 1, 3 and 4, the respondents declined to absorb them on the ground that at the time of their first engagement as contract labourers, they did not possess the qualifications required for appointment as junior lineman. In respect of petitioners 2 and 5, their cases for absorption were also rejected on the ground that as on 18-5-1997 they were not on the rolls as contract labourers. These communications are assailed in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners, made valiant attempt to convince this Court that the reasoning given by respondent No.3 is not sustainable. The learned counsel submitted that even though petitioners 1, 3 and 4 were not holding the qualification of ITI, which is one of the essential requisites for appointment as junior lineman, they should have been considered for other categories of posts. With regard to petitioners 2 and 5, he submitted that they possess enough evidence to show that they were first engaged on 1-4-1995 and 3-3-1993 respectively and were very much in the contract employment as on the relevant date viz., 18-5-1997. The respondents have taken the stand in the counter-affidavit that while the qualifications for junior lineman are passing SSLC/SSC/10th class with ITI preferably Electrician Trade, for the post of LDC one must be a graduate with a pass in typewriting lower grade as per the Board’s Service Regulations and that, therefore, petitioners 1, 3 and 4, who merely passed intermediate/SSC/graduation without ITI or typewriting lower grade qualification are not entitled to be considered for either junior lineman or other posts. Sri P.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, reiterated this stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. As petitioners 1, 3 and 4 failed to prove that they possessed the requisite qualifications for being considered for any of the categories of posts covered by B.P.Ms.No.36, I do not find any illegality in rejection of their claims by respondent No.3. Equally, petitioners 2 and 5 failed to make out a case that they were on rolls on 18-5-1997. Though petitioner No.2 filed xerox copy of service certificate in the Writ Petition, he has not pleaded in the affidavit that he filed either the original or copy of the purported service certificate before respondent No.3. Unless petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 are able to show that they have filed necessary material in support of their claim that they were on rolls on 18-5-1997, which is a sine quo non for claiming absorption under B.P.Ms.No.36, the decision of respondent No.3, impugned in this Writ Petition, cannot be faulted. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on orde dated 17-1-2000 of a Division Bench of this Court in W Appeal No.1781 of 1999. I have carefully considered th said order and have not felt inclined to grant any relief to th petitioners on the basis of such an order. A perusal of th said order shows that on the representation made by th learned counsel for the respondents/employer that if th appellants therein make an appropriate representatio before the APGENCO Ltd., along with material to show tha they were on the rolls of employment as on 23-9-1996 th same would be considered by the Corporation, the Divisio Bench directed the respondents to consider their cases. my considered view, the order passed by the Divisio Bench, on the basis of a concession made by the couns for the respondents, cannot be relied upon as a preceden This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that this is a lon drawn litigation, which is hanging fire for more than decade. The petitioners failed to give any explanatio whatsoever, as to why they could not produce all th relevant certificates on the previous occasion whe respondent No.3 reconsidered their cases in pursuance o the directions given by this Court in an earlier Writ Petitio filed by the petitioners. Acceptance of the request of th learned counsel for the petitioners would only prolong th litigation further and in order to put a quietus to this vexe litigation, I decline the request of the learned counsel t permit the petitioners to place further material afresh befor respondent No.3. One other reason for my disinclination t accept the said request of the learned counsel is that th learned Standing Counsel submitted that the pos earmarked for various categories under B.P.Ms.No.36 wer already filled up and no useful purpose will be served b permitting the petitioners to produce evidence afresh. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.20713 of 2000 is dismissed as infructuous. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:23-1-2009 MNR