THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1434, 679, 1436, 1442, 1625, 1631, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1638, 1640, 1641,1642, 1643, 1734, 1735, 1760, 1761 of 2008 and 763 of 2009 & WRIT APPEAL Nos. 626, 627, 667 and 684 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) All these writ appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 19051 of 2008 and batch, dated 2.5.2008. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is the same, they are heard and disposed of by this common Judgment. The facts in a nutshell are that the Government through its letter dated 7.6.2006 accorded permission to the Appellants-Distribution Companies to fill up the posts of 7114 Junior Linemen, prescribing the method of appointment and selection, pursuant to which the Appellants issued the first notification on 8.6.2006 and other dates. Basing on the same, the Respondents and several others submitted their applications. While so, the Government issued letter dated 28.8.2006 stating thus: “In view of the meeting held with the Energy Department Officials and representatives of the Associations and Sri M.A. Gafoor, MLA, Sri N.Narasimha, MLA regarding the recruitment for JLM posts held in the chambers of the Hon’ble Minister for I&PR, Energy & Coal on 24th August, 2006, the following instructions are issued for implementation of the same and report compliance. 1. Qualified I.T.I. Candidates with Electrical and other streams may be considered. 2. Last date for receiving nativity certificates from the candidates may be extended to 7th September, 2006. 3. Weightage for experience to be given 4. Clear instructions about following the Rule of Reservations are to be issued. 5. People having from Hyderabad who cannot produce their nativity certificates may be allowed to produce any valid certificate that they belong to Hyderabad and candidates working in Sub- Stations in Hyderabad region may be allowed to produce their P.F. slips as their nativity certificates. “ Thereafter, the Government issued another letter dated 16.10.2006 approving the altering of the entire selection process, incorporating the following eligibility criteria. “(1) Criteria for selections: The candidate shall be selected strictly based on the following criteria. (i) S.S.L.C./SSC/10th Class with I.T.I. Qualification in Electrical/Wireman trade or Intermediate vocational course in Electrical Trade is compulsory. (ii) The Operation Circle/District will be the unit of appointment (iii) Pole Climbing is compulsory. (iv) If conditions (i),(ii) and (iii) above are fulfilled, preference will be given to experience as noted below: (a) Presently serving contract labour who are working now for manning of Sub-Stations of Transco /Discoms with recorded evidence through Sub-Station Log Books to be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer. OR Presently serving contract labour for any other work in Transco/Discoms with recorded evidence of EPF number in his name to be certified by the concerned DE. (b) If contract Labour and fresh candidates apply for the post, the contract labour will be given preference for selection. (c) If more than one contract labour apply for the post, the contract labour with earlier date of birth will be given preference for selection. (d) If there are only fresh candidates who applied for the post, the marks obtained in the qualifying examination will be the criteria for selection.” Basing on the aforesaid letter of the Government, the appellants issued the revised notification dated 20.10.2006 altering the selection criteria. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondents/Writ Petitioners filed the Writ Petitions from which these Appeals arise, questioning the revised notification issued by the Appellants-Distribution Companies, especially Condition No. 6(iv)(c) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006, on the ground that the said condition was irrational, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Many contentious issues were urged by the Writ Petitioners before the learned single Judge with regard to the selection process adopted by the Appellants-Distribution Companies in filling up the posts of Junior Linemen. The learned single Judge, on an elaborate consideration of the matter, allowed the Writ Petitions by the Common Judgment dated 2.5.2008, holding thus: “30. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed, (a) holding that the action of the respondents in altering the criteria for selection, after the commencement of the selection process, and incorporating the conditions, providing for an absolute priority in favour of Contract Labour; as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; (b) Directing the respondents: (i) To consider the feasibility of evolving a structured formula, to provide precedence to the contract labour, by awarding one mark for each year, of completed service, as Contract Labour, in a work, for which deployment of such candidates is stipulated, and subject to certification of the same by the Superintending Engineer; not exceeding five marks and relaxing the qualifications as to age, subject to a maximum of three years, and to ensure that the merit so worked alone shall be the criteria for selection. (ii) To restrict the tenure of the candidates, appointed in pursuance of the notifications dated 8.6.2006 and 20.10.2006 to one year, mentioned in the respective orders; or not beyond 30th July,2008. (iii) To implement the Rule of Reservation by preparing separate lists of candidates of the respective Categories, and by drawing them for appointment, in accordance with their respective percentages of reservation.” Challenging the same, the Appellants filed these appeals. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Appellants would firstly contend that the learned single Judge was not justified in holding that the action of the appellants in altering the selection process was illegal and arbitrary. Secondly, he would contend that in the selection process, preference would normally be given for experienced people and merely because preference would be given to such of those candidates who are older, the entire selection process would not become illegal or arbitrary; that the respondents cannot have any grievance for incorporation of such a condition, as ability is the main criteria for selection. He would further submit that since prescribing of the method of selection is a policy decision of the Appellants, the directions given by the learned single Judge at para 30(b)(i) and (ii) of the judgment are liable to be set aside. While relying on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 17809 of 2006, dated 18.9.2006, the learned Advocate General would contend that the revised notification was issued by the Appellants keeping in view the observations made by the High Court in the said Writ Petition. Lastly, he would contend that the direction issued by the learned single judge at para-30(b)(iii) with regard to implementation of Rule of Reservation is also liable to be set aside, inasmuch as, no particulars of caste status have been furnished by the applicants. He, therefore, prayed that the writ appeals be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside. On the other hand, Sri M. Venkataram Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the Respondents/Writ Petitioners, contended that the Appellants issued the revised notification after commencement of the selection process by incorporating Condition No.6 so as to select the candidates of their choice. He would further contend that the Appellants have brought about Condition No.6(iv)(c) so as to deprive the experienced candidates, who applied for the post in pursuance of the earlier notification and that the incorporation of such a condition is wholly illegal and arbitrary. He further stated that the learned single judge on a thorough consideration of all the aspects, rightly allowed the Writ Petitions through the impugned common judgment and the impugned common judgment does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. At the stage of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents/Writ Petitioners requested the Court to call for the records from the Appellants in order to know whether the Appellants have validly incorporated Condition No. 6. Accordingly, we requested the learned Advocate General to produce the relevant records, pursuant to which, the learned Advocate General has produced the records. We have perused the entire records relating to the issue in question. Having perused the records, we are of the opinion that the Appellants have incorporated Condition No.6(iv)(c) without any valid basis. We also find from the record that Condition No.6(iv)(c) was not at all the subject matter of the discussions which took place between the Energy Department Officials, representatives of various Associations and the Members of the Legislative Assembly in the chambers of the Energy Minister on 24.8.2006, in relation to recruitment of Junior Linemen. We, therefore, fail to understand as to how the Condition No.6(iv)(c) has been incorporated by the Appellants in the revised notification. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the Appellants before the learned single judge in the Writ Petitions, the Appellants have categorically stated that the selection criteria has been prepared keeping in view ‘age’ as the basis. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the counter filed by the Appellants before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1119 of 2008, which states thus: “6. It is submitted that the criteria for selection was revised to benefit the presently serving Contract Labour having same qualification with the others. This is not bad in Law and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India as alleged in the petition. Contract Labour with earlier date of birth, irrespective of the working days, were given preference for selection, to respect the age as chances for employment will come to an end at the earliest when compared to the less date of birth candidates. 9. The memo No. CGM(Comml)/GM(per)/AS/(per)/PO-A/449-A1/2006, dt. 23.4.2007 and other memos were issued to streamline the procedure with required information but selection criteria are not changed at all as alleged. Statement of eligible candidates was prepared as per criteria selection in all probability in the order of earlier date of birth of presently serving Contract Labour. The Revised Notification was given wide publicity and also kept in official website of APCPDCL. 10. With regard to para 12 to 14, it is submitted that Condition No. 6(iv) (c) stating that ‘earlier date of birth will be given preference for selection’. As such there is no misconception as alleged by the petitioners. The clause clearly says to give preference for earlier date of birth only. As per the notification the presently working contract junior linemen were selected with earlier date of birth and the selection was made keeping in view of the age of the candidate who is working by taking into consideration the chances for employment will come to an end at the earliest when compared to the candidates of less date of birth. There is no possibility of injustice to anybody as per clause 6(iv)((c) “if more than one contract labour apply for the post, the contract labour with earlier date of birth will be given preference for selection”. The aforesaid statement of the Superintending Engineer(Electrical), Operation Circle, APCPDCL, Nalgonda, makes it clear that the candidates with ‘earlier date of birth’ have been selected as Junior Linemen instead of more experienced but younger candidates, contrary to the statement made before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 17809 of 2006. Relying on the letter dated 16.10.2006, written by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Energy Department to the Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Transco & Chair Person, APPCC, Hyderabad, the learned Advocate General tried to submit that the Government approved the revised criteria for selection of Junior Linemen on contract basis basing on the orders of this Court issued in the aforementioned Writ Petition. Having perused the letter, we are of the view that the Appellants are trying to take shelter under the aforesaid letter to cover up their mistakes. In fact, in the said Writ Petition, the petitioners therein questioned Condition Nos.7(ii) and (iv) of the first notification dated 25.6.2006 issued by one of the Distribution Companies, which was on par with the notification dated 8.6.2006, on the ground that Gram Panchayat was treated as a Unit for the purpose of appointment to the post of lineman and weightage was not given to experience. The learned single judge through order dated 18.9.2006 disposed of the said Writ Petition holding thus: “Though the appointments are made on contract basis, but, however, when the unit of appointment is a circle, there is no reason or justification by imposing restriction under Condition No.7(ii) of the notification. With regard to Condition No. 7(iv),it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, that subsequent to the issuance of notification, the respondents themselves have issued corrigendum on 13-7-2006, giving weightage marks to the experienced candidates. For the above said reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior Linemen on contract basis by treating the Operation Circle/District as Unit of appointment, without reference to the restriction imposed under Condition No. 7(ii) of the notification, and, further by giving weightage to the experience as notified in corrigendum published on 13.7.2006.” Thus, in the said Writ Petition, the petitioners therein had only challenged two Conditions; viz., Condition Nos. 7(ii) and 7(iv) and they did not challenge the whole of the notification, warranting the revision of the other parameters of the selection. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the authorities incorporated Condition No. 6(iv)(c) and issued the revised notification with a view to give preference to a select few and to pick the candidates of their choice. We, therefore, concur with the finding of the learned single judge recorded at para-30 (a) of the judgment that the aforesaid action of the recruiting agency in altering the criteria for selection, after the commencement of the selection process and in incorporating new conditions providing for an absolute priority in favour of older contract labour is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, we do not find any reason to disturb the said finding. Now, coming to the other two directives issued by the learned single judge at para 30(b)(i) and (ii) with regard to evolving of a structured formula to provide precedence to contract labour and restriction of tenure of the candidates appointed pursuant to the notification dated 8.6.2006, this Court is not empowered to issue such directives to the recruiting agency with regard to evolving of the process of recruitment as this Court is not sitting in appeal over the selection process adopted by the Appellants while making recruitment to the posts of Junior Linemen. Hence, we feel it appropriate to set aside Clauses (i) and (ii) of para-30(b) of the judgment of the learned single judge. Accordingly, the directives issued by the learned single judge in para 30 (b)(i) and (ii) of the impugned judgment are set aside. Now, coming to the other directive issued by the learned single Judge under Clause (iii) of para-30(b) of the said judgment, which dealt with the Rule of reservation, we feel that the appellants can have no grievance with regard to the direction to implement the rule of reservation as provided by Constitutional mandate. We see no reason to interfere with para 30(b)(iii) of the learned judge’s order. At this stage, the learned Advocate General produced before us of copies of the written instructions dated 9.11.2009 and 10.11.2009 received by him from the Chairmen and Managing Directors of the Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., (APCPDCL) and the Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APSPDCL) respectively, and submitted that without going into the correctness or otherwise of the recruitment process, the Appellants- Distribution Companies are willing to absorb the Respondents-Writ Petitioners, who were adversely affected by Condition No. 6(iv)(c) of the Revised Notification dated 20.10.2006. He further stated that the Appellant-Distribution Companies are public utility services and since the Junior Linemen who have been recruited in pursuance of the revised Notification 20.10.2006 are 7114 in number and since a situation has arisen where the services of all those personnel would have to be disbanded if Clause 6(iv)(c) of the revised notification is struck down, leading to disruption of essential services, the Appellants-Distribution Companies are willing to absorb and appoint all those Writ Petitioners who were affected by Condition No. 6(iv)(c) of the revised notification. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the individual written undertaking, which reads thus: “Now without admitting the claim of the petitioners and without going into details of correctness or otherwise of the said recruitment process, the Company is ready to absorb and select the Writ petitioners who are affected due to the Clause 6(4)© of Revised Notification, dt. 20.10.2006.” 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 fulfilment 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 others 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 regularisation of their services as per rules and policy. The writ appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. WRIT APPEAL Nos. 626, 627,667 and 684 of 2008 In view of the aforestated orders passed in Writ Appeal No. 1434 of 2008 and batch, no further orders are necessary in these Appeals. The Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. _________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 10th November, 2009 ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb