IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.21176 of 2000 Between: P. Laxmirajam S/o Bugulaiah R/o. Rangapur village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operations, A.P.Transco, Ltd., Karimnagar District. ....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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned letter No.SE/OP/KNR/ADM/D.No.2573/99, dt. 28-8-99 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and set-aside the same as it violates Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Consequently direct the respondent to absorp/appoint the petitioner forthwith as Jr.Linemen etc., in pursuance of the interview held on 19-9-97 and pass any further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. N.ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the case of the petitioner could have been rejected on the ground that as on 18-5-1997 he was not in service as a casual labourer/village electricity worker and whether fixing of the date - 18-5-1997 through B.P.Ms.No.271, dated 31-12-1997 was proper ? The said question was already answered by this Court by a Judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1071 of 2000, dated 7-2-2007 and as such, this Writ Petition is also liable to be allowed in terms of the said judgment. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The failure of the 2nd respondent to objectively consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as Junior Lineman is declared as illegal and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Junior Lineman, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. If the petitioner is found otherwise eligible and suitable and it is also discovered that any of the persons, who were selected and appointed as Junior Lineman junior to the petitioner in the context of seniority clause contained in B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-5-1997, then the petitioner or such of them, who may be senior to the selected, should be appointed as Junior Lineman with retrospective effect from 28.8.1999. However, keeping in view the fact that the matter has remained pending before the Court for more than 7 years, I deem it proper to direct the person, who may be selected in terms of this order, shall not be entitled to monetary benefits for the intervening period. No order as to costs. 27-3-2008 prk