IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6487 of 2008 Between: P. Srinivasulu, S/o. P.V. Chalapathi, R/o. H.No. 25/182, Ameedala Street, Old Town, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Singereni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad - 500 004. Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Cicle, APCPDCL, Ananthapur Circle, Engineering College Road, Ananthapur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not disposing of the petitioner's representation dated 22-11-2007 and in not appinting the petitioner as typist, computer operator, or against any against any suitable posts on regular basis against the existing vacancies in terms of BPMS 36, dated 18-5-1997 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direc the respondents to appoint the petitioner on regular basis as typist, computer operator or against any other suitable post in the existing vacancies, in terms of BPMS No. 36, dated 18-5-1997 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22-11-2007 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6487 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged by the then A.P. Electricity Board as Typist on contractual basis. Claiming the benefit under B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, the petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion for absorption into the service of the Board. The writ petition was disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter, dated 22.06.2000, to the petitioner, informing that as per the award in I.D.N.78 of 1992 and the observations made by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.1135 of 1994, Act 2 of 1994 applies to him and in that view of the matter, he is not eligible for appointment on regular basis. The petitioner claims to have made a representation on 22.11.2007 in the recent past to the 1st respondent and seeks appropriate directions in this regard. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating that the case of the petitioner has been examined with reference to the relevant parameters way back in the year 2000 and it was informed that he is not entitled to be appointed. They contend that the writ petition is barred by laches. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner had approached this Court almost a decade ago, claiming the benefit under B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, and the writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner with reference to the said B.P.Ms. In compliance with the said direction, the respondents issued the letter, dated 22.06.2000. The petitioner is not able to point out that any of the grounds mentioned therein are not relevant. At any rate, the petitioner had approached this Court eight years after receiving the communication from the respondents. The writ petition is barred by laches and this Court is not inclined to entertain the same. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 16.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6487 of 2008 Date: 16.07.2008 JSU