IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.8152 of 1999 Between: Md.Muthahar and another. … Petitioners And The Chief Engineer, A.P.TRANSCO, Warangal and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Ashok Anand Kumar Counsel for the respondents: None This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is disposed of as the same is pending since 1999. This Writ Petition was dismissed for default on 23- 4-2008. WPMP No.22516 of 2008 was filed for its restoration. This Court today passed a separate order restoring the Writ Petition. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners questioned the action of the respondents in not appointing them as Helpers in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-5-1997. The case of the petitioners is that they have been working as Village Electricity Workers under the Scheme framed by the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board (for short “APSEB”) to which A.P.TRANSCO has succeeded. APSEB issued the said B.P.Ms.No.36 in terms of settlement dated 5-3-1996 entered with the workers’ unions, wherein it has agreed to appoint Ex-Casual Labour, Village Electricity Workers and Contract Labour, subject to their fulfilling the eligibility criteria by reserving 50% of the existing vacancies. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they satisfied all the requirements stipulated by the said Board Proceedings, they were not appointed. The petitioners in their affidavit stated that persons, who were juniors to them, were appointed as Helpers and certain persons named in paragraph 7 were appointed even though they did not have the required qualifications. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Secretary (Legal) of APTRANSCO, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioners belong to O.C. category and their turn has not come up for filling up of the vacancies. He denied the allegations of the petitioners that they have absorbed ineligible candidates. Referring to the allegation that eight candidates, mentioned in paragraph 9 of the petitioners’ affidavit, were appointed, the answering officer stated that their cases stood on a different footing as they were appointed in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No.7958 of 1998 by relaxing the age criteria. He also explained the allegation of the petitioners that Md.Habeeb Khan and Kondagattu, who were juniors to them, were absorbed, by stating that there was no person by name Md.Habeeb Khan; and Kondagattu belonged to S.C. category and his turn has come up in the roster while filling up of 50% of the vacancies. After considering the argument of Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the respective pleadings, I am of the view that the respondents have not committed any illegality in operating B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-5-1997 qua the petitioners. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-5-1997 is operative and the selections made in pursuance thereof are being given effect to, the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed as and when their turn matures for appointment. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:04-12-2008 MNR