IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17460 of 2007 Between: M.Rama Krishnaiah S/o.Narayana R/o.Bandapalli village, Nutanakalva, Talupula Mandal, Kadiri, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Redhills, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief General Manager (HRD) A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Redhills, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operation), A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Anantapur, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Contract Junior Line Man as illegal, arbitrary, unfair labour practice and violative of natural justice principles besides violative of Art. 14, 16, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Contract Junior Line Man and also direct to pay all incidental and consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondents : P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Contract Junior Lineman as arbitrary, illegal, unfair labour practice and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Contract Junior Lineman and also pay all incidental and consequential benefits. It appears, petitioner applied for the post of Contract Junior Lineman in pursuance of the notification dated 6.6.2006, which was revised on 20.10.2006 and he was also permitted to appear for interview. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is fully qualified and eligible for being appointed as Contract Junior Lineman, his case was not considered. Hence this writ petition. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 14.8.2007, granted interim direction directing the respondents to consider for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Contract Junior Lineman, if he is already qualified and selected, as per law. Now the learned counsel for respondents Mr.G.Vidyasagar, on instructions, states that the petitioner was not a contract labour as on the date of notification, therefore, he was not appointed as Contract Junior Lineman. However, his case will be considered in the existing vacancies as a fresh candidate in terms of the notification. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the existing vacancies as a fresh candidate, as per his eligibility, and pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 25.2.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17460 of 2007 25.2.2008