IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23297 of 2002 Between: 1 N.Kistaiah, S/o. Siddaiah, Working under the control of Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, N.P.D.C., A.P.Limited, Kamareddy. 2 C.yadagiri, S/o. Sailoo, Working under the control of Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, N.P.D.C., A.P.Limited, Kamareddy. 3 J.Narasimlu, S/o. Shankaraiah, Working under the control of Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation, A.P.S.E.B.,Biknoor, Nizamabad District. 4 T. Ravikumar, S/o. Chakrapani, Working under the control of Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, N.P.D.C., A.P.Limited, Kamareddy. 5 R.Suresh Kumar, S/o. Chinnaiah, Working under the control of Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation, A.P.Transo, Machareddy, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Nizamabad. 2 The General Manager, H.R.D., Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Warangal. 3 The Chief Engineer, Operation, A.P.Transco, Nizamabad. 4 The Chief Managing Director, Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioners in suitable posts in pursuance of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents apart from reiterating the averments contained in the counter-affidavit, submitted that while in the case of petitioners 1 and 2, there were no agreements as on 18.05.1997, which was the relevant date for determining the qualification of contract labourers, in the case of petitioner No.3, there is no check measurement of the work indicating that he worked as on 18.05.1997 and he is not having typewriting qualification, which is the essential requirement for the post of Typist. He also submitted that in the case of petitioner Nos.4 and 5 also, no check measurements were available showing that they worked as on 18.05.1997. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present to point out any illegality in the stand taken by the respondents. In view of the same, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 6th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni