IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15898 of 1999 Between: Sri Vallabhaneni Mastan, S/o.Nagoor, R/o.529-69/1. Indian Bank Street, Repalle, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.A.P.Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2.The Superintending Engineer Operation Circle, A.P. Transco 4/7, Brodipet, Guntur-2. 3.The Asst.Accounts Officer, E.R.O. & A.P. Transco, Repalle, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: Order: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioner by regularizing his services in the regular vacancy of Lower Division Clerk or any other suitable post in respondent No.1-Corporation as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner, who claimed to have worked in respondent No.1-Corporation on daily wage basis, earlier filed W.P.No.32318 of 1997 in this Court. An order was passed on 04.12.1997 by this Court in the said writ petition, in pursuance of which, Selection Committee interviewed the petitioner on 27.03.1998 and on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner for absorption vide letter, dated 25.07.1998. Feeling aggrieved by the petitioner’s non-absorption, he filed the present writ petition. While the petitioner averred that he initially joined the electricity department in the year 1991 and was later allowed to work in respondent No.1-Corporation, after it was created under the provisions of the A.P.Electricity Reform Act, 1998 and had been working even on the date of filing of the writ petition, the case of the respondents as reflected in the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Secretary/Legal of respondent No.1-Corporation is that the petitioner has never worked either in A.P.S.E.B. or in A.P. TRANSCO and that there is no material to show that he was directly employed in the service of respondent No.1-Corporation. It is further stated that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was interviewed and his claim for absorption was rejected by order, dated 25.07.1998 issued by respondent No.2. No rejoinder is filed by the petitioner. Unless the petitioner is able to prove that he satisfies all the requirements envisaged in B.P.M.S.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, he is not entitled to absorption. In view of the specific denial by the respondents that the petitioner had ever worked in their organization, it is not possible for this Court to delve into the disputed questions of fact. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. Date: 19.12.2008 VGB