THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos. 620, 604 and 605 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J) W.A.No. 620 of 2008 Writ Appeal No. 620 of 2008 is filed with the leave of the Court by the candidates selected pursuant to the notification dated 20.10.2006 issued by the respondent authorities for the post of Junior Linemen against the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 10573 of 2007, dated 2.5.2008. The said Writ petition was filed by the 4th respondent herein seeking writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his case for interview to the post of Junior Lineman as arbitrary and illegal. The case of the 4th respondent is that he has passed I.T.I. Electrical and he had worked in Cuddapah for a period of 7 years. In pursuance of the revised notification issued by the A.P.S.E.B. he has applied for the post of Junior Lineman and he further submits that he served as Contract Labour from 1.8.2000 to 4.1.2007. Though he was called for interview, he could not attend the interview as he was advised by the doctor to take rest from 25.4.2007 to 10.5.2007 due to ill-health Therefore, he filed the Writ Petition No. 10573 of 2007 seeking writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his case for interview to the post of Junior Lineman as arbitrary and illegal. An interim direction was granted by the learned Single Judge to interview the writ petitioner. Subsequently, vacate stay petition was filed by the official respondents. But, the said writ petition has been allowed, along with other writ petitions, by the learned Single Judge by order dated 2.5.2008 in Writ Petition No. 19051 of 2008 and batch. Now, the present writ appeal has been filed by the candidates who have been selected through the notification on the ground that they are affected parties. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent – Corporation submitted that since 4th respondent has not passed climbing test, which is one of the essential requisites for appointment to the post of Linemen, he has no right to seek the relief prayed for and as such the writ petition ought not to have been allowed by the learned single Judge. Admittedly, the 4th respondent-writ petitioner failed in the pole climbing test, therefore, he has no claim whatsoever in the selection process. Further, he has also not challenged the impugned notification on any ground. Therefore, the 4th respondent is not entitled for the relief sought for and the order of the learned single Judge to the extent of allowing the Writ Petition No.10573 of 2007 is liable to be set aside. Consequently, Writ Appeal No.605 of 2008 filed by the official respondents need not be gone into on merits. Accordingly, Writ Appeal No.620 of 2008 is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.5.2008, to the extent of allowing W.P.No.10573 of 2007, filed by the 4th respondent-petitioner, is set aside. W.A.No.605 of 2008 Following the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 620 of 2008, this Writ Appeal is also needs no interference to the extent of respondent in this Writ Appeal. W.A.No. 604 of 2008 The present Writ Appeal is filed by the APSPDCL against the orders of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 2074 of 2008, which was disposed of along with batch of Writ Petition Nos. 19051 of 2008 on 2.5.2008. The respondent- petitioner filed the Writ Petition with a prayer seeking a direction to official respondents to receive his application for the post of Junior Lineman and consequently to direct the respondents to conduct the interview and consider his case on par with others on the ground that he has made his application in pursuance of the clarification issued by the Chief General Manager, Hyderabad in Memo No. CGM/HRD/DS/AS.III/P.O.VII/Adm./D.No. 769/06, dated 26.12.2006, wherein it was clarified that the contract labour who possess the qualification i.e. Diploma in Electrical branch without having required ITI qualification for the Post of Contract Junior Lineman are also eligible. It is also contended in the said writ petition that as he is a candidate with diploma in Electrical and Electronics qualification, he has chosen to make his application, but the authorities have refused to receive the same as it is time barred. Pursuant to an interim direction granted by the learned Single Judge, he was permitted to participate in the test. A counter has been filed stating that in respect of the candidates who have applied with qualifications of ITI and Diploma, a clarification was sought from the Chief General Manager, Hyderabad, who has clarified that the persons who are having Diploma in Electrical branch are also eligible. The candidates who have submitted their applications as on 14.11.2006 were considered for the post of Lineman. But, the petitioner did not choose to make his application before the cut off date i.e.14.11.2006 and they also denied of having received the application from the petitioner in the prescribed format on 29.10.2006. It is also further submitted that the writ petition was allowed along with the batch of cases and in view of the factual position stated above; the writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that the petitioner- respondent has never chosen to file any application before the cut off date and his contention that petitioner’s application has been returned as time barred has no basis. He also submits that the writ petitioner has not challenged the said notification. Under the above circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2074 of 2007 along with batch of writ petitions cannot be sustained. A document has been placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent that in pursuance of the clarification issued by the Chief General Manager dated 26.12.2006, the respondent has chosen to make an application, which has been returned as time barred. But, however, it has to be observed that there is no material placed before this Court that petitioner has made an application with the authorities before the cut off date as per the notification dated 20.10.2006 so as to enable the authorities to consider his case as was done in the case of other candidates. In the absence of any material available evidencing that he has made his application before the cut off date, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge with reference to Writ Petition No. 2074 of 2007, which was disposed of along with the batch of writ petitions No. 19051 of 2008 and batch, dated 2.5.2008, cannot be sustained. The petitioner has to make his application as per the notification dated 20.10.2006 but not as per the clarification given by the Chief General Manager dated 26.12.2006. In the absence of any evidence put forth by the respondent- writ petitioner evidencing that he has made the application before the cut off date, the contentions raised by the respondent herein that his case has not been considered cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge in respect of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2074 of 2007 is set aside. In the result, Writ Appeal No. 620 of 2008 is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.5.2008, to the extent of allowing Writ Petition No. 10573 of 2007, filed by the 4th respondent-petitioner is set aside. Following the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 620 of 2008, Writ Appeal No. 605 of 2008 is also needs no interference to the extent of respondent in Writ Appeal No. 605 of 2008 and accordingly the Writ Appeal No. 605 of 2008 is dismissed. The Writ Appeal No. 604 of 2008 is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge in respect of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2074 of 2007, dated 2.5.2008 is set aside. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 3.11.2009 CHV