IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32486 of 2011 Between: P.Anantha Reddy … Petitioner and Central Power Distribution Co. of AP Ltd., Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Direcotr, Red Hills, Hyderabad-4 and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32486 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not issuing appointment letter in spite of passing the pole climbing test on 22.08.2007, as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, unfair labour practice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is contract labour. Pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents in the year 2006, he submitted his application for the post of Junior Lineman. As he was not called for interview, he filed W.P. No.17774 of 2007 and this Court by interim order dated 21.08.2007 directed the respondents to conduct interview to the petitioners therein applied for the post of contract Junior Lineman and further directed not to declare the result until further order. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.09.2007, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents that if the petitioners are qualified and selected, they may be appointed as junior Lineman on contract basis as per law. Thereafter, the petitioner attended the pole climbing test conducted by the respondents on 22.08.2007 and got success in the said test. The respondents having received the success certificate of pole climbing test did not pass any appointment orders. Therefore, he got issued a legal notice dated 05.07.2011 but he has not received any reply. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the pole climbing test was conducted on 22.08.2007 wherein the petitioner got success. But the respondents did not issue any appointment orders. He further submitted that in W.A. No.1434 of 2009 and batch the respondents have given undertaking for providing appointment to the persons who have qualified in the interview but in respect of the case of the petitioner, no appointment order has been issued. Even in W.P. No.17774 of 2007 this Court categorically directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners therein as Junior Lineman (Contract) as per law, if they are qualified and selected. So far, as the respondents did not issue any appointment order to the petitioner, the respondents may be directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner as Junior Lineman. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that pursuant to the interviews conducted on 22.08.2007, the results have already been declared but it is not known whether the petitioner got selected or not. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he successfully faced the interview, pole climbing test, conducted by the respondents on 22.08.2007, and this Court categorically directed the respondents in W.P. No.17774 of 2007 that the results of the interview conducted on 22.08.2007 be declared and if the petitioners are qualified and selected, they may be appointed as Junior Lineman (Contract) as per law, but however, the respondents have not issued any appointment letter to the petitioner. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that this Court in W.P. No.17774 of 2007, while disposing of the writ petition, categorically directed to declare the results of the interview conducted on 22.08.2007 and if the petitioners are qualified and selected, they may be appointed as Junior Lineman (Contract) as per law. In that view of the matter, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 12.12.2011 LSK