IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEEN DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15739 of 1999 Between: S. Sankar Narayana … Petitioner AND A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep., by its Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Chaitanya Counsel for respondents 2&3: Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15739 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 23.06.1999, whereby the petitioner’s application for absorption as LDC/Typist in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 was rejected. Heard Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned Standing counsel for A.P. Transco and perused the record. The petitioner, who claimed to have worked under a contractor, filed WP.No.29159 of 1997 in this Court for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for absorption in accordance with B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with the direction to the respondents as prayed by the petitioner. In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner’s case was considered and rejected by respondent No.2 by the impugned order on the following ground: “As on the date of engagement i.e., 05.05.1995 you are not a graduate. You have not produced the Intermediate Certificate to consider your case for appointment as Typist. The nature of agreement is not mentioned in service certificate.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contractor, who is stated to have disputed the authenticity of the experience certificate purportedly issued by him, was impleaded as respondent No.3 after seeing the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that he has not entered his appearance. In my considered view, one of the essential requirements, namely, the experience not being established by the petitioner by filing proper proof in respect thereof, respondent No.2 has not committed any illegality in rejecting the petitioner’s request for absorption. The initial burden is on the petitioner to prove that the experience certificate produced by him is genuine. As he failed to discharge the said burden, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.19408 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.12.2008 ES