HON’BE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4548 of 2010 Date: April 27, 2010 Between: N. Ravinder, S/o. Jagannadham, Age: 39 years, Occ: Contract Labour, R/o. Errabelly village, Bheemadevarapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District, and two others … Petitioners And The Northern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chairman And Managing Director, OPP: REC Petrol Pump, Hanumakonda, Warangal, and another … Respondents Order: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions to the respondents to consider their candidature for appointment to the post of junior lineman on contract basis in the first respondent- company, in terms of the directions of this court in W.A.No.1434 of 2008, and batch dated 10-11-2009. In the year 2006, 398 posts of junior linemen on contract basis fell vacant in Karimnagar Circle. The respondents-Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., decided to fill up such vacancies and while filling up vacancies, they considered the claims of the contract labour who were already working and also that of outsiders. Out of 398 vacancies, 333 vacancies were filled up as per the roster vide proceedings dated 16-11-2007 and 18-12-2007. The claims of the petitioners and others were considered in the remaining 65 vacancies. It is the case of the petitioners that as their claims were not rejected, they are to be considered in view of the directions of this court in W.A.No.1434 of 2008 and batch dated 10-11-2009. While issuing notification to fill the vacancies, respondents have notified the eligibility criteria. As per condition 6(iv)(c) of the notification, one of the eligibility criterion is to the following effect: “If more than one contract employee applies for the post, contract labour with earlier date of birth will be given preference for selection”. That part of the criterion notified came to be questioned before this court and a Division Bench, in W.A.No.1434 of 2008 and batch, by order dated 10-11-2009, while disapproving such condition as a criterion for selection, directed the respondents to consider the cases of the candidates who were already successful in pole-climbing tests. In this writ petition, the claims of the petitioners were not rejected on the ground that they do not satisfy the eligibility criteria as per the aforesaid condition. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that the first petitioner applied in the category of B.C.”A” and petitioners 2 and 3 in the category of B.C.”D”. It is stated that the first petitioner secured 67.8% of marks, whereas the last candidate selected in that category secured 83.23% of marks and so far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, they secured 78.92% and 76.92% of marks respectively, but the last candidate selected in that category secured 82% of marks. From the above facts, it is clear that petitioners have not come up for selection in spite of consideration of their candidature, as certain other candidates secured more percentage of marks than them. Hence, it cannot be said that their claims have not been considered at all. Though petitioners seek directions in terms of the directions of this court in W.A.No.1434 of 2008, and batch dated 10-11-2009, the directions issued in the said batch of cases will not apply to them for the reason that their claims were not rejected on the ground that they do not satisfy the eligibility criteria, as notified under clause 6(iv)(c) of the notification, but not considered as they were found less meritorious than certain others who secured more marks. Hence, they are not entitled to the relief prayed for by them. The writ petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 27, 2010 MRR