D. Shekar v. 1. Northern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider petitioner's case for being appointed as LDC, ---r duly suspending the letter No CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS_|l/PO.lV/154/05 dt 23-8- 2005 iswsued by the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKER (SC FOR NPDCL) The Court made the following: ORDER --r- / THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.2a136 OF 2OO7 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed secking the folloq,ing relief "...to declare the actiort of the resportdents in rejecting petitioner's case for being a1-tpoiied as LDC as illegal and arbitrary and set-a-side tlte letter No.CGM(HRD)/ GM(s)/ AS-n/ Po.N/ 1s4/ 0s dL 23.08.2005 issued bg the re-spondent. Consequentlg, direct the resportdertls to oppoitlt the petitioner as LDC duly grarLtitl.g ctll otlter con s e quential b eneftt s. " I'r

2. t{eard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddr', lcarncd courlsel for the peLitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learncd Standing Counsel for Northern Power Distribution Companl' Ltd., Telangana, appearing for the respondents. Perused the rnaterial available on record

3. The brief facts of the case are as follorvs: (a) The petiticner u'orked as a Contract Labour in the office of the 3rd respondent lrom O 1.05. 1996 to 30.09. 1999 BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 u,as issued bv the erstwhile APSEB, as a consequence of settlement entered into between the Trade Unions and Management, mandates that 5O% posts of initial recruitment cadre should be hlled in considering the Ex-Casual labour, Contract Labour and VEWs. The 3'd !- 2 respondelrt issuecl Norrllcatton, dated 24.04.200 1, calling upon fr.m the eligilrlc ciu'icliciates t. applv ror tr-re post .r' initral r-ecrLritrrr<'rrt carlr',' .rs rrt,r- BP Ms.No.36, clated I g.05. L()97. ,\s th. l)ctirror(rr \,..is Irrilr qualilied ard cligiblc for. bei.g aprroint.cl as [,])c'. lri: r',:rcl submirted an applicarion along \.ith all tlre ccrriii.alcs inclLrcling thc serr.ice certificate issuecl bv tl-ie cont|actor i|td ('or rntcr siqned b-r. the departmental officials (1;) J'lrerc.afr<.r-. all thc applications and ccrrificares llrodtlcccl l^ ,hI r'artrilrjales $erc scrurlinizecl lrv the ofl'rcials 0f ther 1", rt'sp,,rci.nt irrtrl thereafter pc.titioncr,s ,ailtc \\(ls ircl'rrlerl irr rh. I'-s1 .i' clualiftecr and eligibre <:andiclates lor selecliolr er.cl ilre sia.l., \\.{ts placed on the Noticc Board. After condticting the rnterr.icri's, the respondents have oncc again r-efcrr.d th. rnilttcr- tc \/igilance Authonties lor rrerification of servi.r' c.r-tiilr':rti's ilr'()(luced by thc seiectecl ca.clidates. []a'i.g r.erifi.rl. tlte \Irqilancc Authorities reported thzrt, tlte servic c ccrtific.rte pr-orluced bl. the petitioner is corrr:ct anci genurne. Aflcr the said reporl, the respor-rdents issued a Notification publishcd in the Vaartha Telugu dailr., datecl

13.01 2003, holding that there were no successful car-rdidates and the result oi intcn,icu' held as "NIL". 3 (") Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed Writ - Petition. The said Writ Petition u'as adjudicated along riith the batch of Writ Petitions i.e. W.P.No.5158 of 2003, dated

28.IO.2001. While allou,ing the above batch of Writ Petitions, this Court categoncally observed as follou's: "lt is for the respondent board to ueifg the certificates produced bg the petitioners utith reference to the (lgreetnents awarded to the cottractor, uthich rLtere ueriJied antd counter signed bg the offcial resportdents. Therefore, the action of the respondents irL simply rejectirtg the cases of the peLitir:ners basetl orr the Vigikmce Inspector's report ott the grouttd tilat the controct has not produced th.e aforesaid regislers is unreasonable and unsustainable. Acco rdittg[11, tlrc respondents are directed to ueify the certificates issued by the contractor and counter signed bg the offtcials of the respondertts tuith reference to the agreemats rtntle't tuhit:h portianlar contract labours are engaged as ort 18.05.1997 and consider their cases for appointment in accordantce with BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.O5. 1997". (d) Despite such clear and categorical direction given by this Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated 3l .12.2OO4 holding that the petitioner \^'as not entitled for being appointed as LDC on the ground that his case need not be considered, as he had already appeared for the interview. Aggrieved by the sarne, the petitioner once again filed W.P.No.393O of 20O5, challenging the letter, dated 31.12.2OO4. 4 Herving crrr-rsidcred, Lhis Court by an order, dated l2.OZ.2OO5 sct :rsidr. rhc lettcr, daled 31.12.2OO4 and issued a - consequcrrti:rl rlirr'ction 1o thc respondents to:rpply mind to the dircctioLrs arrci c,bscrvrrtions ntade bv this Court in W.p. No.57-16 of 200.t. ciiired 28.lO.2OO4 and pass orders in accordanc'e vr ith l;ru Hou,ever. once again, the 2",1 respondent rrjecterl tlrc periric,rrcr"s request r idc lctter dated 23 OB.20OS +. Lt'trrned r:oLrnst-l lor the petitioner submits that the resllon(1.'r)ls a11'benl ,-rl)or1 to r(ject the case of the pctitior-rer on one llr('texr: or t hc otlter. l'he service certificate produced b,r. the pctitit>nc'r t'letrr1.i cstablishes that he worked as Contrac[ Labour lrom 0l .05 1996 to 30.09.1999. As such, hc is a Contract Lal;our as on thc cut ol date i.e. 18.05.1997. Therefore, bv shor"r'rr-rg those untenable reasons, petitioner cannor bc' clepriv<.rl ol his appointmcnt. The present Writ Petition is liled :rgainsr rhe impugned Order, dated 23.08.2OO5.

5. Learned counscl lor the respondents filed counter and subn-rits as follou's: (a) 1'hat in B.P(P&G pcr) Ms.No.36, dated 1g.0S.1997 orders \^rere issued for filling up of 50% of the existing vacant posts irvailable as on 18.05. l99T in the initial recruitment cadre i e. Sub F)nginccr / LDCs /Typist / Ex-Casual Labour / 5 VEWs /& Contract Labour subject to conditions mentioned therein and subsequent instruction issued thereol-t. (b) While so, since there were no successful candidates in the intervieu held and since thev failecl to oblige the cor-rditions laid dou n thcrein, results oi the inte rviert tt c-rc declared as -NIL- and the same was published in the Tclugu Nervspapei' Varthar, dared i3.01.2OO3. lVhile so, the Hor.r'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its order, dated 28.10.2OO4 in WP.No.5158 of 2003 & W.P.No.5746 and batch, set asidc the above NIL results ar-rd directed to re verifv the service certificates produced by the petitioner. Accordingll', in terms of the above orders oi the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the matter in respect of the petitioner herein had been revieu'ed and since the pctitioner had not adhered to the conditions mcntioned in B.P(P&G-Per) Ms.No.36, dated i8.O5.1997 for appointment, he could not be selected for the post ol LDC- Accordingly, necessary speaking orders r'r'ere issued to hirn b1' this office proceedings Lr.No. CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS IllPO- IV I 486 lO4, dated 3 1 . l2.2OO4 communicating the reason for this non-selection to the post of LDC. (c) Aggrieved by the rejection orders of his selection, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble t{igh \- ) .- 6 Court ol Andhnr Pra-clesl-r seeking direction to the respondents to cleclarc the spr:akrng orders issued to him by this office, datcd 3l 12 200 I iLs illcgal. While so. the Hon'ble High Courr of Andiri-rr Pr-arlr':;lr ln its ordcr 12.07.2005 in W.P.No.3930 of 2005 drrccLe <i tr, lcl]ou il'rc oltsenrations made in WP.No.515,g of 2003. <larcc jS.l (1.2O04 ancl pass appropriatc orders. In vieu ol-thc abovc ordt:rs of thc Hon'blc High Court, the matter had iiecl-r le.r ic., l .I rr.iri silt<.e tlte pctit oner's cate ol s,orkir-rg it-r the conlruLctor s ls[alriisitment \\as not cstablishcd, hc could not l)e se lccl(,.i. ,,\i:corclinglr, spcakinrr orders r,vere issued b.1, this office r'iiic irrocr',rCrrrg No. l-r. No.CGM(HRD)i GN{(S)/AS I.IIPO-lv II52l0s. clatcd 23 O8.20O5 (d) The scr-i'icc certificarc proriu-ced by the petitioner was not in erc'cor-dancc \\ rth the mand:rted guidelines issued ir-t B.P(P&() P,.r-) \{. 1,,..r,r. cl:rrcrj 18.05.1997 read with instnrctiot'r s rssuerl thercon vicle Memo. Addl. Sec-viDGM[R)/AS lR/PO Itl At I 117O1e9. datecl 03.t2.tggg q.hich are thc pre ,.:onclitions lbr ltroviding employment to him. As such, his case lbr the post of LDC u,as rejected. Thus, the petitioner had failt:d to prove the genuineness of the service certilicate produced bv him. Thus, the action taken by the respondents in le.jecrinq this case is.justified. Accordinglv. prayc'ci to clisnriss tire \Vr-it Petrtion. 7 FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

6. A perusal of the impugned Order, dated 23.08.2005 shoii's that the respondent authonties have rejected the case of thc petitioner by observing zrs follori's "4. Ort a thorough ueificatton oJ the record.s it is Jbund that the seruice cert[ftcate produced by the incumbent contains reference to agreements duing the J mncial Llears 1995-96 only. Houreuer, the seruice certifrcale does not indicate tulrcther the agreetn.ents u.tere either K2 or LS agreetnents, as duratiort of each category of agreernent is different i.e., uhik: K2 culreenten.t utos of slorter dttrcttiort in a .financial year, the LS agreetnent uas oJ longer duratiott and rnay cross ouer f.nartcial gear. Furtlrcr, the certification in the serutce ceftificate thus also n-ot indicate, the nature of aqreement, and besides it was not clear from the certiJicate u.tho has certifted as the departmental official u,ho signed on the certificate merely attested without any speciJic comments.

5. Further the seruice certiftcate produced by the petitioner does n-ot bear date of issue of the certiftcate nor ang of the signatories on the certif"cate did put date. It utas further obserued thdt the seruice ceftificate issued on the letter head of the contractor but the signature of tLe person u.tho i.ssued the certificate does not indicate his stafus uith the Siriuasa Engineers os there was no stomp or otheru.tise. Atso the signature of the person u.tho issued does not tally utith the signature o.s contained in the seruice certificates issued by the controctor with respect to other contract labour. Therefore it giues scope 8 to tLLe, eppr€.Lt:nsion that the seruice certific.ate is not genuirc.

6. Ftrrther. atter+)t hrrs crlso beert rrrcrle to estublish tf itt tha i Lue,sttgrLtiott tt'1xt1 ol the uigtlartr:e uhether tlrcre could bc .nrtl .sir/)-sf .i/t.l i.al euiclence/ trtfonrtalirtn uthtch suppotl lhe c1c:rtttt;tr:rtes.s o/'lhe clain of the inatmbent. Hotutuet. llu irtuc,stigcrtiotl report also irdtcated o.s unaler: Tlrc ofJirlal utlto rttttste,cl steted titet "Tlrc candidates irLcLurlinll il:e 1x'littonr'r (.-entc to hini aLortg ruil11 cotttrclct labour sert,ice, cctltficote issued bq the c:orttractor SrirLir.,asrr Ertqutger.; tind requested io certify. tle fitrther sta|ed tltct-l lte ce,t lifit,rl arul altesterl t/re l.S egreetnetl.t and ruerL. carned oitt brl tlle contractor but lrc: clid not knou candickrtes rtrrl also dtd rtoi tteifg tlte records about at\endancs petI(Liing to cctndilutct."

7. Therefore tl,e \rilJilarrce subnttted lltat "ln the c.ltsertce of the recortls tlte catrcltclcttes nlentiotLed irt cohunrt No. 2 of this case tnoq not ltc cortsidered for the al,tpointment of ang post. betause lhe contractor has not mointoined and also not hauing records, of docurnentary euidertce in proof o.f aboue certi,ticalt'< to proue the rlenrLiru:rtcss of the carrdidate . I lerrce, tlic' contract lalnur seruice certiJicot.e issued. by the ccntractor -seerTrs f o be not genuie."

7. The main observatior-r of the authorities is that neither the service certificatc bears any date o[ rssue nor the Signatories on certil icate put anlr date. [t was fllrther observed that the service certificate issued on the letter head of the contractor but the signature of the person \ rho issued the 9 certificate does not indicate his status with the Srinivasa Engineers as there was no stamp or otheru'ise Also the signature of the person u'ho issued does not tally with lhe signature as containecl in the servrce certificates issued b1 Ll-re contractor t-ith respcct to o[her contract labour. Therefore it gives scopc to the .rpprehcnsion that the service certificate is not gcnuine . B. The autltorities furthcr obsen'ed that an attempt had also been made to establish il in the investigation report ol the vigilance u'hether there could be any substanLia'l evidence/ information u'hich support the genuineness ol Lhc claim of the incumbent. The official who attested stated that he certified at-rd at[ested the LS agreement and r'r'ere carried out by the contractor, bu! he did not kr-ro'"r' candidates and also did not verif]' the records about attendance pertaining to candidate. ln vieu' of the above lacunae, the respondcnt authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner' g. To forrify their contentiol-r, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the j udgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.6498 of 2008 wherein similar set of facts u'ere brought before the Court by the petitioners therein arrd the sarne was dismissed by observing as follo'"\'s: \.. - 10 "lt rs onhl tite con .LCl labortr, thol haue been. cngagecl ctt cr ltctrtictrLar poitt oI tintt,. that rLere <,ntitled to be reri tlctizeci. lir tcnn.s o.l' Il.tr.ll[s.No.36. On at ert.her r)ai ir-sa.)n. ih. crrs|s of- tlte p€ifiiotler..^ urer(. rejr:r.terl. tnt lltr: gnturtcl thet thelJ fatled to prrtu<, the .l'act that th.eu lio.t,,: lteett cttrlarJad. bq lctl,ottr conlrectot. Wten tLLt,y rt1;it,ortclu'tl lhis tilri. c .spr,r.t7lIr: tl:,r,,c,tIorL tlris i.s-sricrl /o ilie Detttiotiet s. a.s rle11 es to tlte responcler s. rs rerytrc)s llrc t.,e:rificatutn o.f record Ott tlrcu p(u1, thc responrlenls (lai a uigiie|ce e qui\J r:orttlucted. Tit.e cottir ttctor, tttitr:t r.ssrir:r, tlrc ci,rlificrries. dtc! trctl ltntclitte arnt tecorcl. artl ('eteqoicallA slated tltat he dtcl rrct tttctintait the srLrrre. At'r of/1cial. tt,ho etti'.orstr! trr iltc: cet t!.fic:alc,., r.e.fii.scr1 lo iipp(,ur ii tJl(, etLqttiirl. At ute l)oitlt )l'linie, lte rleltost,rl tlttLl he no doultt atrdor seci ott t.le t't-r.l t ft<.cttt, s, itrtl d.ul nrt' uerilil atrLl recorrl. sl.rch .rs Attenda nce l?ecil-slr r.. Acquitt ance f?eqister. etc. Wittr thts back clttuncl. lhe lrctitioners cannot be sc.id to htue prot'eci their cctses thrtt the4 h.aue been ertqage d as con tract [ctbour. on an eariier t)ccusiott. I nr]et tlv,s, cirrtttnsrert,,,s, this , o,t11 is nt)t irrclut.ed to ittterfere u)ilh. l.he in4tugttecl ortler.' Aggrieved br. thc above orcler, the petitioners rherein prel-erred an appea.l bv liling Writ Appeal No.95g of 2O0g belorc thrs Court and the same \vas clismissed bv obse tlt:rt th<, petition i,r,olves d: sp,ted questiolls oi lact, ancl thercfore, thc ^,ing lean-red Single Judge has rightl-r' rejected the petition. 1 0. The contention of the learned counsel for the peritioner that the grollnds statecl in the rejection order arc not sustainable in rejectir-rg thc casc of the petitione r. This 11 argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as once the preliminary document i.e. service certificate has lacunae, it cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, the official rvho attested stated th:rt he certrfied ancl attested the LS agreement and u,ere carried out by the contractor, but he ,-id not know candidates ald also did not verify the records abor:t altendancc pertaining to candidate. In view of the same, the Writ Pctition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 1 1. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, sha-ll stand closed SD/. K.MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER VASUDEVA REDDY' Advocate CHANDRA SHAKER (SC FOR NPDCL)' TOPUC] To,

1. One CC to SRI K 2. One CC to SRI A 3. Two CD CoPies' BSK PSK w HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 ( ogTHES T4 1 I iilA8 20'16 .\,,t\ * o * ORDER WP.No.28136 of 2007 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS rrdCA