THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.27632 OF 2007 Dated: 21 .12.2009 Between: 1. Nelluri Thirupathaiah and 6 others. … Petitioners And 1. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Red Hills, Hyderabad-04 and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.27632 OF 2007 ORDER : The petitioners herein are working as Semi-Skilled Workers in the 1st respondent – Power Distribution Company. By notification dated 25.6.2006 the respondents invited applications from the eligible candidates for filling up Junior Linemen Posts on yearly contract basis. The petitioners herein who claim to have fully satisfied the prescribed eligibility criteria applied for the same. However, their candidatures were not considered in view of Condition No.7 (ii) and (iv) of the Notification. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.17809 of 2006. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 18.9.2006 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners to the posts of Junior Linemen on contract basis by treating operation circle/District as unit of appointment without reference to the restriction imposed under Condition No.7 (ii) and further by giving weightage to the experience as notified in the corrigendum published on 13.7.2006. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent by separate letters dated 14.8.2007 informed the petitioners that they did not come within the zone of consideration in view of the condition prescribed in the revised notification that if more than one contract labour applies for the post, the contract labour with the earlier date of birth should be given preference for selection. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioners also sought a declaration that Clause 6 (iv) (c) of the Revised Notification dated 14.11.2006 which provides for preference to the persons with earlier date of birth is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Condition No. 6 (iv) (c) runs as under : “If more than one contract labour apply for the post, the contract labour with earlier date of birth will be given preference for selection.” Having considered the validity of the very same Condition No. 6 (iv) (c) imposed in the Notifications issued by various Power Distribution Companies in the respective notifications issued by them to fill up the posts of Junior Linemen, a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 10.11.2009 in W.A.No.1434 of 2008 and batch held that the said Condition which provided for an absolute priority in favour of older contract labour was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However on the basis of an undertaking in writing given on behalf of the Distribution Companies that they were willing to absorb the writ petitioners therein who were adversely affected by Condition No.6 (iv) (c) of the Notification, the Division Bench disposed of the Writ Appeals with directions as under : “Therefore, taking the aforesaid undertakings of the Appellant-Distribution Companies on record, we direct the Appellant-Companies to appoint all the Respondents/Writ petitioners, who submitted their applications pursuant to the notifications dated 8.6.2006 and the other dates, issued by the various appellant companies, and who have passed the pole climbing test and fulfilled the other eligibility criterion for appointment as Junior Linemen, without reference to and without insisting upon the fulfilment of Condition No.6(iv)(c) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We also make it clear that this direction would be applicable to all those candidates, who have not approached this Court but who had applied in pursuance of the aforementioned notifications, subject to passing of the pole climbing test and fulfillment of eligibility criteria. We however make it clear that the persons who have not applied in pursuance of the notifications dated 8.6.2006 and the other dates and who have not subjected themselves to the selection process have no right whatsoever to claim that they are entitled for such appointment. We also make it clear that all the selected and appointed respondents-writ petitioners and other similarly situated would be entitled for all benefits on par with the persons who have been appointed as Junior Linemen as per Condition No.6 (iv) (c) of the revised notification, including regularization of their services as per rules and policy.” It is not disputed before this Court that the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the above decision squarely applies to the present case. Hence, the impugned orders dated 14.8.2007 are hereby set aside and this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the petitioners herein for appointment to the post of Junior Linemen on contract basis in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1434 of 2008 & batch, dated 10.11.2009 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.21.12.2009 gbs