IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:21816 of 2001 Between: Chakravartula Prasad, S/o. Seetharama Charyulu. R/o. MIG-433, APHB Colony, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. Director. Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.Eastern Power Distribution Company, Rep. Managing Director. Visakhapatnam. 3 Superintending Engineer (Operation), A.P.Transco. Rajahmundry, East Godavari. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: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 direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the regular post of Junior Lineman without disqualifying him on the ground that he was initially engaged by an unlicensed contractor. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner claims to be a contract labourer having worked from 27.04.1986 to 02.01.1998. The erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board issued B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, in which, it provided for absorption of Ex-Casual Labour/Contract Labour and Village Electricity Workers against 50% of the specified posts. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.25000 of 1997 in which a direction was given to the respondents to consider his case in terms of the said B.P.Ms. Accordingly, his case was considered by holding interview to him on 27.03.1998 by respondent No.3 and by proceedings, dated 30.09.1998, the petitioner’s claim for absorption was rejected on the ground that he was not engaged through a licensed contractor. The petitioner did not question the said rejection order and accordingly, the same has become final. The petitioner filed the present writ petition more than three years after the said rejection on the ground that the said ground of rejection was held to be invalidated in other cases by a Division Bench of this Court, which compelled respondent No.1 to issue proceedings, dated 11.08.1999 directing that the contract labourers engaged by unlicensed contractors are also eligible for absorption. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said order, his case was not considered by the respondents for absorption. In my considered view, the writ petition suffers from heavy laches. The petitioner did not explain the reason for his not questioning the order of rejection passed on 30.09.1998. Having allowed the said order to become final, it is not permissible for the petitioner to seek absorption by filing a writ petition more than three years after rejection of his case. The petitioner failed to explain the reasons for huge delay in approaching this Court. In the counter-affidavit filed by the In-charge Assistant Secretary (Legal), AP TRANSCO, it is stated that though the petitioner is eligible for appointment as Junior Lineman, 50% vacancies earmarked for being filled up under B.P.Ms.No.36 were already filled up with eligible candidates. As the petitioner failed to approach this Court before filling up of the vacancies, he is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.Nos.3908 and 3909 of 2002 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd JANUARY, 2009. kvni