IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:4987 of 2000 Between: G.Sekhar and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The A.P.Transmission Corporation Limited and another .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the respondents:MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This is a third round of litigation initiated by the petitioners who claimed to be contract labourers and entitled to absorption in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. The petitioners earlier filed Writ Petition No.12217 of 1998 and in pursuance of an interim direction issued by this Court, their claims were considered for absorption by the respondents by interviewing them on 16.06.1998. The petitioners’ cases were rejected by an order on the ground that they were not engaged by the licenced contractors. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.21445 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court on 13.10.1999 with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ claims irrespective of whether they worked under unlicensed contractor. Accordingly, the petitioners’ cases were re-considered and again, rejected by the respondents by stating that 50% of vacant posts made available under O&M cadre as on 18.05.1997 were already filled based on merit list. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is averred that though initially, the contract labourers engaged by the unlicensed contractors were not eligible, in view of the subsequent instructions issued by the erstwhile APSEB, they were also made eligible and their cases were considered and that 50% of the vacant posts in Junior Lineman (labour) cadre earmarked for being filled up under B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 were already filled up by the candidates - Ex.Casual Labour/Village Electricity Workers, in accordance with merit and that the process of appointments as per the merit list was completed by 27.06.1998. The respondents further stated that as all the vacancies were filled up, the petitioners cannot be appointed. Neither a reply affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained in the counter-affidavit nor the learned counsel for the petitioners is present at the hearing to point out any illegality in the stand taken by the respondents. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.6617 of 2000 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st DECEMBER, 2008. kvni