THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6201/2000 Date of Order: 25-11-2000 Between: M. Sanyasi Rao ..Petitioner and 1.Chairman & Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad-82 and others. .Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6201/2000 Oral Order: The petitioner, who is ex-casual labour, under the control of the fourth respondent, namely, Divisional Engineer, T.L. & S.S. Division, A.P. Transco, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to absorb him as Helper (now Junior Lineman) into the services of A.P. Transco without rejecting his case on the ground of restricting the vacancies to 50% imposed in B.P.Ms.No.36 dt. 18-5-1997 as the petitioner’s case is covered by the orders issued in Memo No.OSD(P)/D.M.I/A3/1138/85-1 dt. 26-8-1985. It is not necessary to elaborate the claim of the petitioner. Suffice to say, the petitioner has earlier filed WP NO.9213/1994, which was disposed of on 9-2-1996. Later, he also filed WP No.16202/1998 to consider his case for appointment as per the benefits extended in B.P.M.S.No.36 dt.18-5-1987 and B.P.M.S.No.271 dt. 31-12-1997 without disqualifying him on the ground that ex-casual labour is under aged as on the date of his initial engagement. The said W.P.No.16202/1998 was disposed of on 2-12-1999 following the decision rendered in WP No.5064/99 and batch dt. 18-11-1999, whereunder, it was directed the Corporation not to disqualify the cases of the ex-casual labourers on the ground that they are over aged by the time when they were first given employment as casual labour and to consider the cases of the eligible ex-casual labourers for appointment on regular basis in terms of B.P.M.S.Nos.36 and 37 without disqualifying them on the ground that they were over aged when they were first given employment as casual labour, etc., Pursuant to the directions issued in WP No.16202/1998, the claim of the petitioner was considered and he was called for interview on 20-6-1998 along with relevant records for considering his case against 50% vacancies in the initial recruitment categories as per B.P.M.S.No.36 dt. 18-5-1997 and selection list was prepared according to the merit/man days duly following the rule of reservation, subject to availability of 50% of vacancies as on 18-5-1997. Though the petitioner was placed in the merit list prepared as per merit/man days following rule of reservation, he did not come up within the number of available vacancies of 50%, therefore his case was not considered and accordingly issued proceedings dt. 17- 12-1999, which is impugned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this court in WP No.26855/1998 dt. 1-7-1998 held that the claim of the ex-casual labourers as on 26-8-1985 has to be considered in terms of Memo No.1138/85-1 dt. 26-8-1985 and not under B.P.M.S.No.36 dt. 18-5- 1997, therefore, ex-casual labour should not be restricted to 50% of the vacancies available as per B.P.Ms.No.36 and therefore considering the case of the petitioner for 50% vacancies fixed in BPMS No.36 should be set-aside and restriction imposed thereunder should be made applicable. This court after considering all circular memos issued directions in WP No.5064/1999 dt. 18-11-1999, which is subsequent to disposal of WP No.26855/1998 dt. 1-7-99. Following the directions issued in WP No.5064/1998, earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, ie., WP No.16202/1998, filed for issuing a mandamus to consider his case in term of B.P.M.S. No.36, has been disposed of. On disposal of WP No.16202/1998, the claim of the petitioner was considered but since he did not come up for selection within the number of available vacancies of 50%, he was not given appointment. In view of the same, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the terms and conditions imposed in B.P.M.S No.36 dt.18-5-1997 regarding quota of 50% vacancies cannot be applied to him. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J Dt.25-11-2010 kmr