THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 644 of 2011 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Junior Lineman pursuant to the Notification dated 23.10.2006 on the ground that he had not worked from 06.06.2006 to 22.08.2006 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Lineman based on his success in pole climbing test held on 31.05.2007 giving preference to him as presently serving sub-station operator Casual Labour on par with other Sub-station Contract Labour. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows. The petitioner has been working as Contract Labour from 23.08.1996 till date through various Contractors in respondent company. The petitioner made applications for the post of Junior Lineman (Contract) pursuant to the Notification issued by the respondent company dated 10.07.2005, 06.06.2006 and 23.10.2006. According to the revised Notification dated 23.10.2006, rule of reservation would be followed strictly as per the existing rules, presently serving contract labour who are working for manning of sub-stations of Transco/Discoms with recorded evidence through sub-stations log books to be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer, or presently serving contract labour for any other works in Transco/Discoms with recorded evidence of EPF number in his name to be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer, would be given preference, if more than one contract labour apply for the post of contract labour with earlier date of birth will be given preference. The service certificate of the petitioner is counter-signed by the Departmental Officials. Though the petitioner was issued call letter dated 28.3.2007 indicating date of interview as 12.04.2007, he was not permitted to the interview on the ground that he was not on rolls of employment from 06.06.2006 to 22.08.2006. Pursuant to the order dated 19.04.2007 in Writ Petition No.7957 of 2007 & batch, the petitioner was permitted to the interview held on 31.05.2007. The petitioner passed the pole climbing test, but he was not given appointment. The first respondent issued a revised notification dated 23.10.2006, to the earlier notification dated 08.06.2006, providing preference to the Contract Labour and also to the aged contract labour in para 6 I (IV) (c) of the Notification. Writ Petition Nos. 19051 of 2007 and batch filed challenging the said notification and the para in particular, was allowed by this Court (2008 (3) ALT 699), and the Writ Appeal Nos.1434 of 2008 and batch, filed challenging the said order, was disposed of, by order dated 10.11.2009, according to which, experience has to be given preference, but not age. As the respondents gave undertaking to appoint all the affected writ petitioners, the Division Bench permitted continuance of the contract labour who were appointed as Contract Junior Lineman based on their age. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Junior Lineman on contract basis on par with the other Sub-station Contract Labour on the ground that he had not worked from 06.06.2006 to 22.08.2006 as Sub-station Operator, is illegal and arbitrary. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The third respondent filed counter affidavit denying the material averments in the Writ Petition and stating, inter alia, that as the petitioner failed to oblige the conditions mentioned in the Notification, he was not appointed as Junior Lineman (C). As per his own admission in the affidavit, the petitioner was not on rolls of employment from 06.06.2006 to 22.10.2006, and that he is not a presently serving contract labour as on the date of issuance of the Notification. So, he is not entitled to appointment as Contract Junior Lineman. The case of the petitioner was considered in terms of the order dated 10.11.2009 in Writ Appeal No.1434 of 2008, but since he lacked eligibility conditions, he could not be appointed. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and it is observed that roster point ended in terms of percentage of marks in ITI up to 81.69% in the said community, whereas the petitioner obtained only 72%. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the revised notification dated 23.10.2006, preference would be given to the persons who are serving as contract labour, but the respondents have not given appointment to the petitioner on the ground that he was not serving as contract labour by the date of the notification dated 06.06.2006 and therefore the respondents have to act as per the terms of the recruitment of the revised notification dated 14.11.2006. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents contended that the recruitment has taken place in pursuance of Notification dated 06.06.2006 and as per the proceedings of the respondent company dated 15.3.2007, preference would be given to presently serving contract labour who are on rolls from 06.06.2006 and 22.10.2006, and therefore, as the petitioner was not on rolls as a contract labour as on the date of first notification, his case has not been considered, and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. It is not in dispute that Notification was issued on 06.06.2006 by the first respondent company for filling up the posts of Junior Lineman on yearly contract basis. As seen from the Notification, there is no preference to the serving contract labour. But, the respondent corporation, admittedly, issued a revised Notification on 23.10.2006 whereunder the criterion for selection is that (i) a candidate has to pass SSLC/SSC/10th Class with ITI qualification in electrical/wireman trade or Intermediate vocational course in electrical trade is compulsory; (ii) he has to climb the pole compulsorily; and (iii) operation circle/District is the unit of appointment. If all the three conditions are fulfilled by a candidate, then, according to clause 6 (I) (c) of the revised Notification dated 23.10.2006 preference would be given to the presently serving contract labour who are working managing sub- stations of Transco/DISCOMs with recorded evidence through Sub-stations Log Books to be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer. 7. As seen from the certificate issued by the officials of the respondent, the petitioner was on contract employment from 23.8.2006 to 30.9.2006 with one Contractor and again from 1.10.2006 to till date with another Contractor. This certificate has not been taken into consideration by the respondents for the reason that the Chairman and Managing Director of the first respondent company issued Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-II/PO-IV/F.No.126/06, dated 15.3.2007 whereunder the presently serving contract labour means the persons have to be on rolls on the date of notification i.e. candidates on duty for the month 6/2006 and 10/2006 and having attendance and paid remuneration for the month. But, no where in the first notification dated 06.06.2006 or in the revised notification dated 23.10.2006, there is a mention about the said meaning. Admittedly, the said Memo dated 15.3.2007 has been issued after the Notifications were issued. Therefore, the Memo dated 15.3.2007 has no application to the present facts of the case. The fact remains that the petitioner was working as a Contract Labour with a Contractor to manage sub-stations of Transco. Therefore, the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for giving preference if he fulfils the other conditions as enumerated in the revised notification dated 23.10.2006. Therefore, the respondents have to take appropriate decision after giving preference to the petitioner if he is otherwise qualified. Admittedly, vacancies of the post of Junior Lineman are available. The grievance of the petitioner is that no such preference was given to the petitioner in the recruitment. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the revised notification dated 23.10.2006 after duly giving preference to him under clause 6 (I) (a) of the revised Notification dated 23.10.2006. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 26.07.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 644 of 2011 26.07.2011