IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12421 of 1999 Between: M.Munirathnam, S/o. Chinnabba, Papanaidupet, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer (Operation), A.P.Transco, Bhavaninagar, Tirupati. 2 The Divisional Engineer (Operation), Vidyuth Bhavan, Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati. 3 The Member Secretary, A.P.Transco, Vidyuthsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Lr.No.SE.O.TPT.PO.ADM.U1.F.SF.DNo.195 dt.12-2-99 issued by the Superintending Engineer (Operation) Tirupati, the 1st respondent herein, rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Line Man on the grounds that he was not provided by the licensed contractor and he has not produced SSC certificate as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and not sustainable under law and consequently direct the respondents to appoint/absorb the petitioner as Junior Line Man with effect from the date of his selection/interview with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12421 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the letter No.SE.O.TPT.PO.ADM.U1.F.SF.DNo.195, dated 12.02.1999, addressed by the 1st respondent – Superintending Engineer (Operation), Tirupati, rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman, on the ground that he was not provided by a licensed contractor and he has not produced S.S.C. certificate, as arbitrary and illegal; and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint/absorb the petitioner as Junior Lineman with effect from the date of his interview with all consequential benefits. According to the petitioner, he was engaged by a contractor to work with the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation has issued B.P.Ms.Nos.36 and 37, both dated 18.05.1997, prescribing certain guidelines for absorption of the contract labour engaged by the licensed contractors. When the case of the petitioner was not considered for absorption, he approached this Court through Writ Petition No.11370 of 1998, along with others, and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner was subjected to selection process; however, no absorption has taken place. Thereupon, the petitioner had to again approach this Court through Writ Petition No.34848 of 1998, along with others. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16.12.1998, granting two months time to the respondents therein to complete the process and pass orders. Pursuant thereto, the impugned letter, dated 12.02.1999, was communicated to the petitioner, by the 1st respondent, rejecting his case for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman on the ground that he was not provided by a licensed contractor and he has also not produced the S.S.C. certificate, as required. The petitioner alleges that the reasons furnished by the 1st respondent for rejecting his case are not proper. He contends that the contractor, who engaged him to work with the respondent Corporation, is a licensed contractor and he has also produced the S.S.C. certificate before the selection committee at the time of selection, but the respondents have illegally rejected his case for absorption. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the objection taken by the respondents that the petitioner was not provided by a licensed contractor is not tenable, in view of the fact that there was no necessity of any licensed contractor engaging the petitioner to work in the Corporation. Once the services rendered by the petitioner with a contractor engaged by the respondent Corporation is admitted, the question of insisting that he should have been provided by a licensed contractor does not arise. There cannot be any difficulty in accepting the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, it appears, the petitioner has not produced the S.S.C. certificate. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has produced the S.S.C. certificate as required, and if really the petitioner has not produced the same, the respondents could have asked him to produce the same and instead of verifying the certificates produced by the petitioner, they have simply rejected his case on unreasonable grounds, I am not inclined to accept these submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The allegation that the respondents have illegally rejected the case of the petitioner is not supported by any reasons. The petitioner has not attributed any mala fides such as personal enmity to the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned order. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner has not produced the basic educational qualification certificate, as required under the scheme for absorption, his case was not considered by the respondents and the said action of the respondents cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal, requiring interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from seeking employment pursuant to any subsequent notification issued by the Corporation and, in any such event, the respondent Corporation shall consider the candidature of the petitioner, as per his eligibility, along with others. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 27th March, 2008. IBL To 1 The Superintending Engineer (Operation), A.P.Transco, Bhavaninagar, Tirupati. 2 The Divisional Engineer (Operation), Vidyuth Bhavan, Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati. 3 The Member Secretary, A.P.Transco, Vidyuthsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 4 Two CCS to 5 Two CD Copies