IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Dt.TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO :36089 of 1998 Between: G.Mallikharjuna Rao ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Divisional Engineer (Operation) APSEB, Red Cross Buildings, Guntur and three others .....RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.36089 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in declining to consider the writ petitioner to be absorbed as a Junior Lineman, by his proceedings dated 25.4.1998 as illegal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Village Electricity Worker by the Sarpanch of the 4th respondent Grampanchayat through his proceedings dated 24.9.1989 inasmuch as the writ petitioner has obtained the technical qualification of ITI (Fitter) after completing his SSC. From 20.9.1989 onwards, he was working as a Village Electricity Worker at Kothur Gram Panchayat and he has been attending to various duties attached to the post of Village Electricity Worker. Further, the Electricity Board has taken a policy decision to fill up 50% of the posts of Junior Lineman (hence forth referred to JLM), to be filled in from among the eligible Village Electricity Workers. Accordingly, the Superintending Engineer (Operations), Guntur issued a call letter dated 6.9.1997 directing the petitioner to appear for selection to the post of JLM on 17.9.1997, at the Technical Training Centre, APSEB Workshop, Gunadala, Vijayawada. It is specifically mentioned in that letter that in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.5.1997 r/w B.P.Ms.No.95, dated 17.7.1997, the case of the petitioner is being considered for appointment against the 50% of the vacancies earmarked for the contract labour/former Village Electricity Workers. It was further submitted by the writ petitioner that the list of the persons who are subjected to the selection process on 17.9.1997 was also got published in leading Telugu daily news papers and one such notification has appeared in Eenadu Telugu daily news paper, wherein his name was included at Serial No.57. Accordingly, the writ petitioner appeared for the selection process. But, however as per the records available in the office of the Electricity Board, the name of the writ petitioner did not figure as an Electricity Worker working as such as on 18.5.1997 and hence his case for appointment as a JLM has been rejected. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The respondents have contested this case by filing a detailed counter-affidavit. It is contended by them that the writ petitioner has not been attending to his duty since August 1995 onwards and that the Control Officer, AAE (Operations), Guntur has to issue the service certificate based upon which the candidates will be selected for the post of JLM. It was further pointed out that the petitioner did join as a Village Electricity Worker at Kottur village on 24.9.1989. He absented from duty for a period of 30 days between 01.01.1995 and 30.7.1995 and thereafter, he was continuously absent. As per the policy decision taken by the Board and announced through B.P.Ms.No.36 and B.P.Ms.No.95, all such candidates who were found to be working as on 18.5.1997 will be considered against the 50% of the vacancies. Since this policy decision is to be given effect to, the names of candidates, who will have to be subjected to the process of selection, have all been got published in the news papers so as to make sure that they will be able to participate at that selections, though individual call letters are also sent up. The names of the candidates, who will have to be subjected to the process of selection, have not been got verified prior to their publication in the news paper or before issuing individual call letters. Since large number of candidates are required to be considered, all such candidates, who are known to be working as Village Electricity Workers have been included in the list of candidates to be subjected to such an interview process, that is how the name of the writ petitioner came to be included therein. But, each individual is required to establish that he has genuinely worked as a Village Electricity Worker, and continuing as such as on 18.5.1997. Inasmuch as the writ petitioner was not in service with effect from August, 1995 onwards, he could not be considered against the 50% of the vacancies reserved for this kind of Village Electricity workers. It was also pointed out that the stipend, which is required to be paid to the respective gram panchayats, where Village Electricity workers have been rendering services, was also not paid to the Gram Panchayat beyond 01.8.1995. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petitioner cannot be treated to be working as a Village Electricity worker as on 18.5.1997 for him to be eligible to be subjected to the process of selection for appointment as a JLM. 4. I have heard Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.Transco. 5. Sri N.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the certificates issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat as well as the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat, the writ petitioner was working as a Village Electricity Worker as of 18.5.1997. But, however the Electricity Board have unilaterally stopped paying him the stipend or reimbursing it to the Gram Panchayat concerned for no justifiable reason. He submits that all through, he has been working as a Village Electricity worker at Kottur Gram Panchayat in Guntur District and hence the rejection of consideration of the candidature of the writ petitioner notwithstanding the fact that he was subjected to process of selection is illegal. 6. Per contra, Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel would contend that each Village Electricity Worker was required to perform his duties in the village concerned and upon satisfactorily discharging his duties, he was required to be paid stipend by the respective Gram Panchayats and thereafter the Gram Panchayat will make a requisition for reimbursement of the stipend amount. In the instant case, the Gram Panchayat has not made any such request for reimbursement of the stipend said to have been paid by it to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner has also not produced any material in the form of vouchers to establish and prove that he has been paid the stipend by the Gram Panchayat at the first instance and that he was on rolls as a Village Electricity Worker as on 18.5.1997. Hence, he submits that the claim of the writ petitioner cannot be considered at all. 7. It is not in dispute that the Electricity Board has taken a policy decision to fill up 50% of the posts with casual workers or Village Electricity workers. For the purpose of selecting the right candidate, the process of selection is undertaken. The candidates are also required to possess the eligibility criteria for such recruitment as per the policy decision contained in B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.5.1997 r/w B.P.Ms.No.95, dated 17.7.1997. Such eligible persons should also be working as on 18.5.1997. The assertions of the writ petitioner and the material produced by him, will not clinchingly establish that he did render service up to 18.5.1997, but, however learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the material produced by him would certainly disclose that he did perform his duties up to 30.3.1997 and subsequently because of certain differences and disputes, the service certificate has not been issued though work has been extracted by the Officer incharge of the Gram Panchayat for the period beyond 1.4.1997. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is in service as on 18.5.1997 and hence as per the policy decision of the Electricity Board, his case ought to have been considered. 8. It is hardly in doubt that the writ petitioner did work as a Village Electricity worker of Kothur village in Guntur District. It is also not further in dispute that he has been issued the call letter by the second respondent/Superintending Engineer and he was subjected to the selection process on 18.5.1997. However, if the respondents are not satisfied as to whether the writ petitioner has been in service as on 18.5.1997 or not and if they needed any further proof in that regard, either an opportunity should have been given to the writ petitioner or to the Gram Panchayat so that reliable material could have been produced by them. If the Gram Panchayat or the writ petitioner is able to produce adequate and reliable material to vouch for the fact that he was actually in service on 18.5.1997, the writ petitioner should not be denied the benefit of being considered for employment against the 50% of the vacancies of JLM. 9. I therefore consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to call upon the writ petitioner to produce material in support of his claim that he did actually work as a Village Electricity Worker of Kottur village in Guntur District till 18.5.1997 and if the respondents are satisfied about the genuineness of such a claim, they may treat him as an eligible person for being recruited against the 50% of the vacancies to be filled in by considering the claims of Village Electricity Workers. Since it is submitted that the 50% of the vacancies of JLM have already been filled in, I will not be able to issue any mandatory direction to consider the case of the writ petitioner straight away for such appointment. As and when the respondents next undertake the selections to the post of JLM along with all other candidates, they may consider the case of the writ petitioner also, provided they are satisfied about the genuineness of the claim of the writ petitioner that he did render service as a Village Electricity worker as of 18.5.1997. The material may be produced by the writ petitioner and it is also open to any of the Officers/employees of the Electricity Board to get such material verified with the records maintained by the Gram Panchayat, Kottur, if is considered appropriate to do so. As and when the next round of selections to the post of JLM are undertaken, the case of the writ petitioner may also be considered if he is otherwise suitable and eligible and qualified for such recruitment. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions. No costs. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 26th November, 2009 PNV