IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 708 of 2000 Between: Amarlapudi Devadas S/o Santhaiah, Vellanki Village, Veerulapudu Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Cheif Engineer, A.P. GENCO, Vijayawada Thermal Power Station (V.T.P.S.,) Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 2 A.P. GENCO, Rep By Its Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner as J.P.A. or any suitable post, though the petitioners was acquitted in C.C.No.155/96 as illegal, arbitrary and Violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to B.P.Ms.36 dt.18.5.97 and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner forthwith as J.P.A. or any suitable post by considering his representation dt.27.7.99 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking directions, declaring the action of respondents in not regularizing the services of petitioner in the post of Junior Plant Attendant, or in any suitable post, as illegal. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner has worked as a contract labour from 1990 onwards in the Turbine Stage-II 19 of the A.P.Genco, and continued as such till 20th March 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the Board Proceedings issued in B.P.Ms.Nos.36 and 37, dated 18.05.1997, he is entitled for regularization of service, and inspite of these proceedings, he was not extended such benefit. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the Assistant Secretary (Legal), on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner has worked as a contract labour under the Work Maintenance, Minor Repairs/Replacement Works in 210 MW Turbine 3 & 4 Units for the period from 01.06.1990 to 22.03.1996. While denying the applicability of B.P.Ms.Nos.36, dated 18.05.1997 to the petitioner, it is stated that as much as the petitioner has worked as Contract Labour, which has been prohibited vide G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996, B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997 will apply to him. It is the further case of the respondents that as per B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997, and as per the further guidelines issued in B.P.Ms.No.272, dated 31.12.1997, the contract labour who were on rolls as on 23.09.1996 alone, are eligible for absorption. It is stated that the petitioner has worked as contract labour only upto 20th of March 1996. Though he was not eligible for absorption as per the scheme, but his name was mistakenly shown in the list prepared for consideration. It is their case that as the petitioner is not eligible for consideration, he was not allowed to attend the interview. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. In the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, a large number of persons were working as casual labour, contract labour and Village Electricity Workers. When there was a demand to consider their cases while filling up the regular vacancies, the then Board has issued proceedings vide B.P.Ms.Nos.36 and 37, dated 18.05.1997, agreeing to consider the cases of casual labour, contract labour and Village Electricity Workers, to the extent of 50% of regular vacancies in the initial recruitment cadres. So far as the Thermal Stations are concerned, engaging contract labour is prohibited as per G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996, and the respondents have issued B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997, to such employees, who were working in prohibited locations. Therefore, the case of the petitioner falls under B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997, and the guidelines issued in B.P.Ms.No.272, dated 31.12.1997, and as such, he is not eligible for consideration, as he was not on the rolls as on 23.09.1996. Even according to the petitioner, he worked only up to 20th of March 1996. 6. As much as the petitioner was not working on the notified date so as to become eligible for consideration in terms of B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997 and B.P.Ms.No.272, dated 31.12.1997, he is not entitled for regularization. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that his case was not considered for absorption only on account of his involvement in a criminal case, which has ended in acquittal subsequently, but from the counter affidavit, it is evident that his claim did not fall for consideration within the purview of the Board Proceedings issued. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to grant the relief as sought for in this writ petition. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th February 2009. rrb/ajr