THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19259 OF 2007 Dated: 17.02.2010 Between: Sri M. M. Rahman … Petitioner And 1. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Rep. by its Chief General Manager (Comml.)., Red Hills, Hyderabad., and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19259 OF 2007 ORDER : The petitioner herein was appointed as a Contract Labour on 1.8.1998 with a contractor of the erstwhile APSEB. It is claimed that after incorporation of AP GENCO, he had worked in different intervals with AP GENCO from 17.3.2001 to 28.2.2005. While so, the 2nd respondent issued notification dated 8.6.2006 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the post of Commercial Contract Junior Lineman. Pursuant to the notification though the petitioner applied, he was not issued call letter. Aggrieved by the same, he filed W.P.No.11169 of 2007 along with similarly situated persons. By order dated 30.05.2007 in WPMP.No.13941 of 2007 this Court granted interim direction permitting the petitioners to appear for the interview and written test subject to the following conditions: (1) The petitioners shall satisfy the eligibility criteria contained in the employment notification; (2) The selections of the petitioners, if any, made shall be subject to further orders in the writ petition and WPMP. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to appear for the interview and written test. However by impugned letter dated 14.8.2007 the petitioner was informed that as per memo dated 23.4.2007 the appointments were limited only to contract labour working in AP DISCOMS/AP TRANSCO and therefore the petitioner was not eligible for appointment. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that since the petitioner was not submitted any proof to show that he worked as a Contract Labour between 8.6.2006 and 20.10.2006 in AP TRANSCO / AP DISCOMS his candidature was rightly rejected. It is contended that the appointments under the impugned notification were limited only to the contract labour worked in AP TRANSCO / AP DISCOMS. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material placed before this Court shows that in the Notification initially issued for filling up about 2,000 Commercial Contract Junior Linemen vacancies, the criteria for selection was specified as under: 7. Criteria for selection : The candidates shall be selected strictly based on the following criteria. (i) ITI qualification in Electrical trade is compulsory. (i i ) Residence in the notified area of jurisdiction is compulsory. In case applicants are not available in the area of jurisdiction, eligible candidates from contiguous Gram Panchayats may be considered. (iii) Pole Climbing is compulsory. (iv) If conditions (i), (ii) & (iii) above are all fulfil and there are more than one suitable candidate then ITI marks will form the basis for selection. Admittedly the petitioner had applied pursuant to the said notification and he had satisfied the selection criteria mentioned in the said notification dated 8.6.2006. However, subsequently a revised notification dated 20.10.2006 was issued by the 2nd respondent with the following conditions: (1) The APCPDCL invited applications from the eligible male candidates for filling up of 2443 Junior Lineman vacancies on contract basis. (2) The details of the revised guidelines inviting applications from the eligible fresh candidates / serving contract labour who are working in the Sub-Stations or presently serving contract labour for any other works in A.P. Transco / A.P. Discoms. (3) Fresh candidates without work experience, who have already applied need not apply again and their earlier application will be considered. Applications with work experience who have applied in pursuance of earlier notification are requested to furnish proof of relevant work experience, if not furnished earlier. (4) The last date of receipt of applications/certificates shall be on or before 14.11.2006. (5) The revised guidelines/details for eligibility/selection criteria are placed in the computer’s website www.apcentralpower.com. Basing on Condition No.2 prescribed in the above notification dated 20.10.2006, the impugned order came to be passed rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on the ground that he was not serving as contract labour in A.P. Transco / A.P. Discoms. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had applied pursuant to the earlier notification dated 8.6.2006, it was not open to the respondents to alter the criteria for selection after commencement of the selection process. An identical question was considered by this Court in W.P.No.19050 of 2007 wherein it was held that the action of the respondent in altering the criteria for selection after commencement of the selection process and incorporating conditions providing absolute priority in favour of the contract labour as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The said decision was also upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1434 of 2007 and batch, dated 10.11.2009. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is not open to the respondents to insist upon the fulfilment of Condition No.2 of the Revised Notification dated 20.10.2006 so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner without insisting on compliance with Condition No.2 of the Revised Notification, dated 20.10.2006. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.02.2010 gbs