IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4861 of 2000 Between: C.Ismail S/o C.Hussain Bee, Nadimi Doodi Village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.Power Transmission Corp., Rep by its Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 Supertending Engineer (Operations ), A.P.Transco, Ananatapur. .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and declare that the action of the respondents in denying regular appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the interview/selection dt 10-4- 98 in accordance with the scheme contained in B.P.MS.NO.36 dt 18-5- 97 is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner as lower division clerk pursuant to the interview/selection dt 10-4-98 and allow all consequential benefits and pass such other or orders as it deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents : P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in denying regular appointment to him in the service of the Andhra Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation, based on the interview conducted on 10.04.1998, in accordance with the scheme notified by the Corporation in B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that when his claim for regular appointment was not considered, he approached this Court vide writ petition No.27741 of 1997, and this Court had directed the respondents to consider his case, and in pursuance of the same, his claim was considered and he was interviewed on 10.04.1998. It is his grievance that though he was eligible as per the scheme notified, he was deprived of the benefit of appointment. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the names of persons who were on rolls as on 18.05.1997 were only considered for extending the benefit of appointment. It is stated that the petitioner has worked as a Village Electricity Worker only upto 1/94. Though these Village Electricity Workers were appointed by the respective Grampanchayats, but the Electricity Company would reimburse an amount of Rs.600/-. As it is stated that the petitioner was continued as a Village Electricity Worker only upto 1/94, there is no basis for his claim that he was in service as a Village Electricity Worker as on 18.05.1997. Petitioner is claiming the benefit to the service, based on the particular scheme notified by the respondents and unless the petitioner fits into such scheme, he cannot be employed. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner through the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th January 2009. ajr