IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 24829 of 1999 Between: B.Mukund S/o Parasinath, R/o Narayan Reddy Colony, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman/Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, (Operation), A.P.Transco, Medak District, Sanga Reddy. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ in the nature of "Mandamus" declaring the action of the respondent in not appointing the petitioner as a Junior Lineman even though the petitioner was selected and allotted to the Division Engineer, Sanga Reddy after Verifying the records which is nothing but arbitrary, illegal and Malaﬁde and issue consequential direction to fourth-with appoint a petitioner as a Junior Lineman and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as a Junior Lineman even though the petitioner was selected and allotted to the Divisional Engineer, Sangareddy, after verifying the records, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner as a Junior Lineman. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that earlier he ﬁled W.P. No.17667 of 1999 with the similar prayer and that was disposed of by this Court on 20-08-1999. Wherein, it was mentioned that the petitioner was an ex-casual labourer working with the respondents. For regularization, he was interviewed on 05-11-1997 and a select list was prepared wherein the petitioner’s name was shown at serial No.15 but he did not secure any orders of appointment. Therefore, he made a representation dated 08-09-1998 stating that he came to know that he has ﬁve working days less due to which his appointment orders were withheld. In this connection, he represented that he has worked for more than 150 days and the same was approved by the Board and requested to consider his case for appointment. Taking into consideration the representation dated 08-09-1998, this Court vide order dated 20-08-1999 held that there is a factual dispute as to whether the petitioner has worked for the required period or not and directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 08-09-1998 and to verify from records and pass appropriate speaking orders, within six weeks from the date of receipt of said order. In compliance with the said order, the 2nd respondent has issued a letter dated 02-11-1999 stating that the number of man-days available, as per the records, against the name of the petitioner, are not suﬃcient, as per guidelines, to consider his case for appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on the working days of the petitioner, the petitioner was selected under the quota of ex-casual labour and allotted to the Operation Division, Sangareddy District. She also submits that the petitioner has put in 150 working man-days and whereas the required working man-days are 100 only, in the case of ex-casual labour, for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman. In support of the claim of the petitioner, he ﬁled certiﬁcates that he worked for a period from 01-04-1981 to 15-07-1981 (75 days) and from 01-08-1981 to 20-11-1981 (75 days) issued by the Assistant Accounts Oﬃcer, E.R.O. Sangareddy and Additional Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Construction, Patancheru, respectively. In view of the above and as the petitioner is the ex-casual labour, he is entitled to the appointment to the post of Junior Lineman and issuing impugned order dated 02- 11-1999 rejecting appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the number of man-days available as per records are not suﬃcient is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. As per the material placed before this Court it is a speciﬁc case of the petitioner that he is an ex-casual labour and he put in 150 man-days. Further he was interviewed on 05-11-1997 and a list was prepared where his name was shown at serial No.15 and he was allotted to the Divisional Engineer, Sangareddy, but order of appointment was denied on the ground that he has no suﬃcient man-days. In the order dated 20-08-1999 made in W.P. No.17667 of 1999 this Court clearly directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 08-09-1998 and pass speaking order. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 02-11-1999 it is a proforma order ﬁlled up with the blanks. As per the certiﬁcates issued by the Assistant Accounts Oﬃcer, E.R.O. Sanga Reddy and the Additional Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Construction, Patancheru, the petitioner is having 150 man-days and as per the Memo dated 26-08-1985 issued by the Board minimum number of days required are 100. The impugned order dated 02-11-1999 is issued stating that the petitioner has no sufficient man-days. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the case of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that he has no suﬃcient man-days but the respondent Board is failed to place any material evidence to show that the petitioner has no suﬃcient man-days and there is no other reason to reject the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has ﬁled the certiﬁcates showing that he has 150 man-days and he was selected and allotted to the Divisional Engineer, Sangareddy. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 02-11-1999 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the impugned order dated 02-11-1999 is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman and pass speaking, reasoned, order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 03-11-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in a week. B/o. LSK