HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION No. 4878 OF 1999 Between: P. Nagaraju ..... Petitioner AND A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director & another .....Respondents :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri V. Srinivas Counsel for the respondents : Shri Samineni Kishore Dated: 26.12.2006 In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to appoint him as Typist/L.D.C. in terms of policy contained in B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. In the affidavit filed by him, the petitioner has averred that he had worked as contract employee in 1992-93 with M/s Srikanth & Company who was executing contract on behalf of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’). In 1997, he filed Writ Petition No. 13780 of 1997 for issue of a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment in accordance with the policy decision taken by the Board. The same was disposed of on 02.07.1997 with the direction to the respondents to consider his case for absorption as per B.P.Ms.No.36 of 1997. According to the petitioner, he appeared for interview on 02.11.1997 and produced relevant documents, but his candidature was arbitrarily rejected on the ground of non-production of the relevant documents. In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri B.S. Ramachandra Rao, Assistant Secretary (legal), Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, it has been averred that in compliance of the direction given by the High Court, the petitioner was interviewed on 02.11.1997, but his candidature was rejected because he did not produce the service certificate. It is borne out from the record that the copy of the counter-affidavit was supplied to the advocate for the petitioner some time in June 2001, but no rejoinder has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since the petitioner has not filed rejoinder affidavit to controvert the assertion contained in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents and no evidence has been placed on the record of the writ petition to show that he had produced the service certificate at the time of interview, it is not possible to entertain his prayer for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to appoint him as Lineman. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner nor Shri V. Srinivas has argued that the service certificate was not required to be produced as a condition for appointment pursuant to the policy framed vide B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. Therefore, the petitioner’s failure to produce the service certificate at the time of interview was sufficient for rejecting his candidature and I do not see any reason to interfere with the decision of the respondents. For the reason stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 6102 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ 26.12.2006 ksld