IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5349 of 2008 Between: 1 Basava Venkata naga Durga Sarveswara Rao S/o. Narsimha Rao R/o. Palangi Village, C/o. Dhanalaksmi Suppliers, Opp. Hanuman Temple, Undrajavaram Mandal, W.G. District-534 211 2 Motru Mutyala Rao S/o. Venkateswara Rao R/o.S.A. Dangya Nagar, Near By Pass Road, Janga Reddy Gudem, W.G. District-534 447 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent Engineer, Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Operation Circle, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Operation Division, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 3 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Operation Division, Nidadavolu West Godavari District. 4 The Director of Technical Education Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 5 The Director of Employment and Training Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 6 The Principal , Sri Lakshmi Memorial Industrial Training Centre, Penumantra, West Godavari 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 of Mandamus or any other suitable direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in refusing the candidature of the petitioners for provisional appointment for the post Junior Lineman (Y.C.B.) on the Ground that their I.T.I. (Electrical Trade) qualification is not under the National Council Training in Vocational Traders (NCTVT) Pattern as arbitrary illegal, and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 forthwith reinstate the petitioners as Junior Lineman with effect from the date of refusal of their candidature for provisional appointment to the said post with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.R.V.S.S.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5349 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners were selected and appointed as junior linemen by the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 10.01.2007 and 09.01.2007 respectively, on the basis of verification of certificates and performance in the tests, conducted for selection. Hardly within one month, the second respondent kept the orders of appointment of the petitioners, in abeyance vide proceedings dated 02.02.2007, on the ground that genuinity into the certificates and qualifications produced by the petitioners is being verified. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing this writ petition, feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for respondents. The petitioners were selected and appointed on contract basis as junior linemen, after they passed the relevant tests. The second respondent has reserved himself, the right to verify the genuinity of the certificates, produced by the petitioners. If during the course of verification of the certificates it emerges that there is defect in the qualifications held by the petitioners, the second respondent can certainly take necessary action. However, once the second respondent has appointed the petitioners, he cannot discontinue them by keeping the orders of appointment in abeyance, in the name of verification. The order of appointment confers valid right upon the petitioners and the same can be taken away only on the basis of verification in accordance with the clauses contained in the order. Viewed from any angle, the action of the second respondent, in keeping the orders of appointment of the petitioners in abeyance cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 02.02.2007 keeping the orders of appointment of the petitioners in abeyance are set aside. As a consequence the petitioners shall be permitted to join duties. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the second respondent to verify the genuinity of the certificates produced by the petitioners and take necessary steps in accordance with law, depending on the outcome of the verification. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 13th March, 2008 GHN