THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.20236 OF 2004 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings dated 27.9.2004 in Lr.No.SE.O.OGL.ADM.PO.JAO.D.NO.284/2004 in rejecting the case of the petitioners for appointment as contract JLM, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent – Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (for short ‘the Company’) to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman. 3. There are two writ petitioners in this writ petition. The case of the petitioners as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that they are qualified in I.T.I in Fitter and Radio Television Trades and are working in the respondent – company since 1993 and 1996 respectively as contract laborers. The erstwhile Board of the respondent- company issued B.P.No.36 dated 18.5.1997 for filling up 50 per cent of the vacancies available from out of the existing contract laborers, casual laborers and village electricity workers and as the cases of the petitioners were not considered, they filed W.P.No.34884/1997 and 24528/1997 and this court disposed of the said writ petitions directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the above said B.P.No.36 dated 18.5.1997 and the respondents have passed orders stating that their turn did not come up within the available vacancies as per the roster point and hence cannot be considered. While so, the respondent issued notification dated 14.8.2003 calling applications for the post of Junior Lineman on contract basis for working under the 2nd respondent – The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Ongole and in the said notification, the age limit for O.C. category is prescribed as 25 years and for other categories as 30 years as on 1.8.2003 and that they shall process SSC/SSLC/10th besides pass in I.T.I., preferably with Electrician Trade or Vocational Course in Electrical Trade. Aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioners filed W.P.No.17723/2003 and by order dated 27.8.2003 this court directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for relaxation of their age. It is stated that as per the notification, possession of I.T.I. in Electrician Trade or Vocational Course in Electrical Trade, is only preferable and not mandatory and further the grievance of the petitioners is that though this court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for relaxation of age, the respondents by the impugned order, rejected the cases on the ground that they are age barred and that the others grounds in the impugned order are not tenable and hence sought to set aside the same. 4. The 2nd respondent – Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, Ongole filed counter affidavit and while referring to the notification dated 14.8.2003 and the eligibility criteria therein, stated that the as per the directions of this court in W.P.No.17723/2003 dated 27.8.2003, the petitioners were interviewed and as they could not prove their eligibility as per the norms and requirement, their cases were negatived and accordingly impugned order was passed. With this averment inter alia, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. Before adverting to the contentions raised in the respective affidavits, it is pertinent to note the relevant portion of the impugned order as under: “In pursuance to the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in W.P.No.17723/2003 dated 27.8.2003, your case is examined and you were interviewed on 13-2-2004 and your case cannot be considered for appointment as contract JLM for the following reasons: 1. You are age barred. 2. You have other than Electrical Trade in ITI 3. You were failed in pole climbing 4. You were failed in cycling. 5. You were failed in meter reading” 6. From the material on record the undisputed facts are that the petitioners are working as contract laborers since 1993 and 1996 and they possess the qualification of ITI in Fitter and Radio Television Trades and pursuant to the notification dated 14.8.2003 for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman, they applied for the same, but their cases were rejected and, therefore, they filed W.P.No.17723/2003 and this court by order dated 27.8.2003 directed the respondents to consider their cases for relaxation of their age. In the impugned order, one of the grounds for rejection of their cases is that they are age barred. The case of the petitioners is that if their age is taken as on the date of their initial appointments, they are perfectly within the age and since they are working from 1993 and 1996, they shall be given preference. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that their cases were considered and as they doesn’t fulfill the norms and requirement, their cases were negatived. It is to be noticed that this court in W.P.No.17723/2003, taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for relaxation of age. But from the impugned order it could be seen that no reasons are assigned and there is also no material on record to show that the order of this court has been complied with by passing any speaking order. Further as per the notification dated 14.8.2003, the qualification of ITI Electrician Trade or Vocational Courses in Electrical Trade are only preferable and the petitioners are working since 1993 and 1996 respectively as contract labor and they possess the qualification in ITI Fitter and Radio Television Trades and that it is also their case that out of 85 posts notified, only 65 persons were appointed. The other grounds for rejecting the case of the petitioners, also appears to be ostensible, since the petitioners are working for the past many years, with necessary qualifications. 7. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, and in view of the above reasons, I am of the considered opinion, that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman as per the notification dated 14.8.2003 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ------------------------------ 11—07—2008