THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3079 OF 2006 O R D E R: The petitioners are said to have been appointed as Contract Labour, on different dates, between 1.10.1994 and 1.5.1996, in the A.P. Generation Corporation Ltd, the 1st respondent herein. They claim to be under the immediate control of respondents 3 and 4. According to them, they hold the requisite qualifications and fulfilled the conditions for being appointed as LDCs, which falls into Category 4(b) of the A.P.S.E.B. Service Regulations. The petitioners feel aggrieved by memo, dated 23.1.2006, whereunder the 3rd respondent had called for the option from all the Graduate Typists (approved probationers) working under his administrative control and are willing for conversion as L.D.Cs. The petitioners state that when they are eligible to be considered for appointment on transfer, to the post of L.D.C, the 3rd respondent cannot preempt their opportunities, by filling the same through conversion of posts of Graduate Typists. Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Chidambaram, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The service regulations framed by the 1st respondent, provided for classification and control of various cadres. The post of LDC/Typist/Computer Operator is classified under Category 4(b). Appointment to that post is, by way of direct recruitment and by transfer from the existing employees of the Corporation. The claim of the petitioners is for appointment by transfer, to the said post. A perusal of the relevant provision discloses that appointment by transfer is from the employees in the Corporation General Service, Operation and Maintenance Establishments, Construction Establishment, or from NMRs and Full-time contingent staff, who possess the requisite qualifications. It is not in dispute that the petitioners do not fall under any of these categories. The mere fact that the respondents have discontinued the engagement of NMRs, or Full-time contingent staff, cannot be considered as a factor to treat the petitioners, who are admittedly contract labour, as falling into that category. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any genuine grievance vis-à-vis the impugned memo dated 23.1.2006. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 25th June 2008 PAN