IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.25167 of 2002 Between: Sankurathri Venkata Tata Rao and nine others. … Petitioner And The A.P. TRANSCO, reptd., by its Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, AP TRANSCO, EPDCL, Vidyut Sakha Bhavan, Godavari Bunds, Near Kumari Talkies, Rajahmundry (PO), East Godavari District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Narasimha Rao. Counsel for the respondents: Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside orders dated 18-7-2001 issued by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioners’ claim for absorption into the service of A.P.TRANSCO has been rejected. The petitioners are graduates and claimed to have been engaged as contract labourers by the contractors to carryon the works of erstwhile A.P.S.E.Board, which was succeeded by A.P. TRANSCO and EPDCL, in East Godavari District. They claimed to have worked as contract labourers since 1992. They were called for interviews on various dates from 13-10-1997 onwards for being considered for absorption in 50% vacancies earmarked for Ex- casual/contract labourers/village workers under B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-5-1997. Their cases were considered for the posts of lower division clerks. The petitioners claim that they were included in the selection list prepared by the respondents. As they were not given appointment orders, they filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioners were interviewed along with nearly 100 candidates for various posts. After preparing the selection list, the Chief Engineer/Vizag Zone/Visakhapatnam referred the certificates of the petitioners to Inspector of Police/Vigilance/ APTS/PS/RJY for ascertaining their genuineness. It is further stated that as per the report of the Vigilance Wing, the service certificates produced by the petitioners could not be accepted for the following reasons: “(1) The service certificate produced by Sri Md.Abdul Jabbar and Sri K.Venkata Ramana were signed by one AEE of SACB Project (not APTRANSCO)/Dowleswaram. The service certificate produced by the remaining candidates were not signed by any official of the AP TRANSCO. As per the Memo No.Addl.Secy.DGM(IR)/AS(IR)/PO.II/1170/99, dated 3-12-1999 of AP TRANSCO to be accepted, the certificate issued by the contractor has to be signed by the AP TRANSCO official i.e., AAE/AE/ADE duly verifying with reference to agreement under which the particular contract labour is engaged i.e., prior to 18-5- 1997 and confirming that the check-measurement is after 18-5-1997. (2) Further, the contractor Sri T.S.R.Anjaneyulu has not obtained the licence as required by law to use contract labour. He has not also maintained most of the records as required by law. Though he has produced Attendance Registers and salary payment receipt, it can be noticed that all these records (from 1993 to 1999) are prepared at a time. The attendance register of 1999 is totally blank. The other so called Attendance registers also were not signed by anybody, neither the contract labour nor the contractors. Thus the certificate issued by the contractor do not carry any evidentiary value”. It is further averred that as the experience certificates produced by the petitioners are not genuine, they were not appointed as LDCs. At the hearing, Sri P.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to establish the bonafide nature of the certificates produced by them. He further submitted that when the certificates were produced by the petitioners, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to call for proper information and verify the registers with the contractors before arriving at the conclusion that the certificates produced by the petitioners are not genuine. He further contended that the very fact that the selection committee has short-listed the names of the petitioners itself gives raise to a presumption that they were satisfied with the genuineness of the service certificates. Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, opposed these contentions and submitted that on a proper verification of the genuineness of the service certificates produced by the petitioners, it was found that they did not have the required experience for being considered for absorption; and that, therefore, the action of the respondents does not suffer from any illegality. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The reasons for rejection, which are contained in the counter-affidavit and reproduced hereinabove, indicate that either the service certificates produced by the petitioners did not at all contain the counter signatures or the counter signatures contained on the service certificates produced by the petitioners do not belong to the officials of the A.P. TRANSCO. It is also mentioned by the Vigilance Authorities that as per Memo dated 3-12-1999 issued by the A.P.TRANSCO, the service certificates issued by the contractor has to be signed by the A.P. TRANSCO official duly verifying with reference to the agreement under which the particular contract labour is engaged prior to 18-5-1997 and confirming the check measurements after 18-5-1997. Another reason assigned by the Vigilance Wing to term the service certificates as not genuine was that the contractor, viz. T.S.R.Anjaneyulu, under whom the petitioner were stated to have worked as contract labourers, has not maintained most of the records as required by law and that though he produced the attendance registers and salary payment receipts for the period from 1993 to 1999, they appeared to have been prepared at one time and the alleged attendance registers were not signed by any person. In my considered opinion, the reasons contained in the report of the Vigilance Wing, on the basis of which the petitioners’ claims were rejected, are based on proper verification of the records. The petitioners have, admittedly, not satisfied one of the foremost requirements of a valid service certificate, viz., counter signature by the officer of the AP TRANSCO. Moreover, the findings of fact, based on the verification of the record, on the genuineness of the claims of the petitioners that they have worked for the period from 1993 to 1999, cannot be re-appreciated by this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents should have given an opportunity to the petitioners to establish the genuineness of the certificates produced by them, I am of the view that the law does not require that the selected candidates should be heard before the certificates produced by them are rejected. Apart from absence of any such legal requirement, it is also not feasible or practicable for the appointing authority to give such an opportunity to the selected candidates. The law is well settled that a selected candidate does not have indefeasible right for appointment and in the absence of such a right, he cannot insist on providing an opportunity of hearing by the appointing authority before deciding on the genuineness of the certificates. At any rate, the respondents applied their mind and rejected the experience certificates, on the basis of relevant material. With regard to the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is liable to be rejected too. The mere fact that the petitioners’ cases were included in the selection list by the selection committee on the basis of the certificates produced by them, does not give rise to any such presumption. As is the general practice, after the selection is made and before the appointment orders are issued, the employers always get the genuineness of the certificates produced by the selected candidates verified through its own agencies. That is precisely what the respondents did in this case. When the very claim of their experience for absorption as contract labourers is found to be not correct, this Court does not find any reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------------ Dt.05-02-2009/MNR C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J