IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14696 of 1999 Between: 1 Devanand, S/o. Pasetti R/o. Nirmal, Adilabad. 2 G.Babu S/o. Gangahar R/o. Adilabad. 3 J. Madhava Rao S/o. Gujram R/o.Adilabad. 4 Sayanna, S/o. Bojanna, R/o. Adilabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer (Elec.), A.P.Transco Nizamabad Zone, Nizamabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operation). A.P.Transco, Nizamabad. 4 The Superintending Engineer (Operation), A.P.Transco, Adilabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of petitioners, further directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for absorption into service at NIZAMABAD Zone in the interest of justice as otherwise petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and damage or pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioners: MS.P.A.KAMALESWARI Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14696 OF 1999 ORDER: There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for absorption into regular service in Nizamabad Zone of A.P. Transco, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners were working as village electricity workers in the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’) at the time of filing of the writ petition. It is stated that in view of the longstanding demand of the unions of the employees working in the Board to consider the claims of ex-casual labour, contract labour and village electricity workers while filling up the regular vacant posts in the Board, the Board has issued B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 to fill up 50% of the existing vacant posts in initial recruitment cadres by considering the claims of such ex-casual labour, village electricity workers and contract labour. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioners that some of their juniors working as village electricity workers in Karimnagar Circle were extended the benefit of absorption into regular service in the light of the said B.P.Ms.No.36, but they were unduly deprived of the said benefit. 4. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the claims of the petitioners were considered and their names were found in the merit list, but however, they could not come up for selection and could not be appointed to regular posts for want of vacancies as much as, as per B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997, only 50% of the vacant posts have to be filled up with ex-casual labour, contract labour and village electricity workers. The allegation of the petitioners that their juniors were absorbed into regular service is also denied. 5. From the averments in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the claims of the petitioners were considered, but however they could not be appointed for want of vacancies, as much as only 50% of the vacant posts were available to be filled up with the ex-casual labour, village electricity workers, contract labour etc. When the said 50% vacant posts were accordingly filled up as per the merit, no illegality can be alleged against the respondents merely because the petitioners have not come up for selection. In any event, as much as it is stated that appointments were made circle-wise and no juniors to the petitioners in the cadre of village electricity worker were appointed in Nizamabad Circle, I do not find any illegality on the part of the respondents to grant the reliefs as prayed for. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 13th August, 2008 IBL