S.Venkata Ramesh v. Northern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd

Order

This Writ Petition is hled seeking the follou,i rg reiief: "...to declare the action of tLrc respondents in r r petilioner's case for be[ng appointed os LDC a: and arbitrary and set a side No.CGM(HRD)/ GM(IR&L)/ AS(L)/ Po-Hs/ wP 1 : 2OO5-08 dt.2B.O2.2OO8 issued by the 2nd resL,t Consequentlg, direct the respondents to appc petitioner as LDC on par uith his colleaclut toere appoint.d in tenns of NotiJication 24.04.2001, auLy granting all other consel benefits." ie.cting illegal letter )9s of ndent. nt the s tL.tho rcntial

2. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned cr unsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, 1ea- red Standing Counsel for Northern Power Distribution () ,mpany Ltd., Telangana, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record

3. The brief facts rf the case are as follows: (a) The petitioner u,orked as a Contract -abour in the office of the 3.d respondent from 01.04.1996 r r 31.O3.1998. The 3.a respondent issued Notihcation, datec 24.O4.2OO1, calling upon from the eligible candidates to app ir for the post of initial recruitment cadre as per BP Mr; No.36, dated i8.05. 1997. As the petitioner was fully qualifie J and eligible for being appointei es LDC, he had submitted m application ,l 2 along with all the certificates including the service certificate issued by the contractor and counter signed by the departmental officials. Thereafter, petitioner's narne was included in the list of qualified and eligible candidates for selection and the sarne was placed on the Notice Board. (b) After conducting the interviews, the respondents have referred the matter to Vigilance Authorities for verification of service certificates produced by the selected candidates. Having verified, the Vigilance Authorities reported that, the service certificate produced by the petitioner is correct and genuine. After the said report, the respondents issued a Notification published in the Vaartha Telugu daily, dated

13.01.2003 holding that there were no successful candidates anh the results of interview held as 'NIL". (.) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner fiied W.P. No.5746 of 2003 before this court. While adjudicating this case along with batch of cases, the Hon1ole Court observed as follows: "lt is for the respondent board to uerifg the certificates produced bg the petitioners uith reference to the agreements a utarded to the contractor, uthich uere uerified and counter signed bg the official respondents. Tlerefore, the action of the respondents in simply rejecting the cases of the petitioners based on tte Vigilance Inspector's report on the ground that the contract has not produced the aforesaid registers is ( 3 uftreasondble and unsustainable. Accord t glg, the respondents are directed to ueifg the ceftificct:s issued bg the contractor and counter signed bg the < fftciaLs of the respondents u.tith reference to the agreem= ts under uthich particttlor contract labours are engalt 'd cLs on 18.05.1997 and consider tlteir cases for appcn tment in accordonce utith BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.19,)'". Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are a1lowr: 1 bv an order dated 28.1O.2OO4 directing the respondents Lo consider petitioner's case in the light of the aforesaid c I servations for their absorption pursuant to the orders in BP Xt;.No.36, dated

18.05.1997. Despite such direction given by t ris Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated 31. 72.2OO1 rejecting the petitioner's case (d) Aggrieved by the sarne, the petition rr once again Itled W.P.No.15095 of 2005, challenging thr: letter, dated

31.12.2OO4. Having considered, this Court by :.r order, dated O3.01.2007 disposed of the above Writ Petition. r \ring liberty to produce all the relevalt material before the 1l .l respondent. Pursuant to the above direction, the petitioner rad submitted representation, duly enclosing the educational qualifications artd also service certificates and requested appoint the petitioner as LDC in terms of BP Ms.No.36, date i 18.05. 1997. However, without considering the submissionri made by the petitioner, in gross violation of the earlier orders rassed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.5746 of 2OO3, the 2,d respondent 4 issued a Memo, dated 28.02.2OO8, once again rejecting petitioner's request for appointment as LDC. As such, the present Writ Petition is being filed, questioning the order, dated

28.O2.2OOa issued by the !"a respondent. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are bent upon to reject the petitioner's case on one pretext or the other. However, while ad.ludicating W.P. No.5746 of 2003 and batch, this Hon'ble Court categorically held that for the fault of contractor, the contract labour cannot be punished and hnd fault with. Having held so, this Hon'ble Court directed the respondents to verify the certificates issued by the contractor with reference to the agreements, under which, the contract labour were engaged. However, even after th6 judgment in W.P.No.5746 of 2OO3 and batch, by reiterating the same old grounds, the petitioner's request for being appointed as LDC was rejected, thereby showing utter disregard to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.5746 of 2003 and batch.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that .t while rejecting petitioner's case vide order, dated 18.02.2008, respondents contended that upon enquiry, though the contractor conceded that the service certificate was issued bv 5 him, he stated to have informed the Enquiry ( fficer that he had not maintained aly record, as he was not rr;ked to do so. As the contractor had not maintained th : records, a presumption was drawn, as if, the service certif i :ate issued by the contractor, which was counter signed by thc departmental officials, was not genuine and accordingly, it t as held that petitioner was not eligible for appointment in tt: ms of BP Ms. No.36, dated 18.05. 1997.

6. l,earned counsel for the petitioner further submits that such al action on the part of the respondents is rvholly i1lega1. Once the service certificate clearly indicate the pr riod of service rendered by the petitioner, which was even coll rter signed by the departmental official, which clearly disclo r rs petitioner's period of working, his case cannot be rejected ,n the ground that contractor could not maintain the record. [f anv Rule or Regulation mandates the contractor to majntai r the records, he may be liable for such lapse. But, on that ground, petitioner's certificate cannot be presume ( as \.\,.rong Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents file< counter ernd submits as follows: I 5 (a) That in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 orders were issued for frlling up of 5O% of the vacant posts of LDCs/Typist/JPOs/Ex-Casual Labour/VEWs and Contract Labour existing as on that day subj ect to fulhlling the conditions mentioned therein. Accordingly, Notification was issued on 28.04.2001 from the desired candidates. While so,inasmuch as the petitioner herein, who applied for the post of LDC/'Ilzpist, had failed to oblige the conditions laid down therein, he could not be selected. Inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Notification, dated 30.11.2OO2, calling him for the interview, will not confer on him any right to claim for appointment since his selection was subject to.the fulfillment of the conditions laid down in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated

18.O5.1997 to which the petitioner failed to oblige. As such, he could not be selected for the post of LDC. (b) Since no successfi-rl candidates were available in the interview, NIL results were notified in the daily Newspaper. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed Writ Petition seeking directions to the respondents to declare the said results as illegal. In pursuance of the above, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated 28.10.2004 in W.P.No.5746 of 2OO4 and W.P.No.5158 of 2003 and batch, set aside the above NIL results and directed to consider the case ) 7 inter alia of the case of the petitioner in the ligtL of observation made in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.i99? In pursuance of the above orders, since the petitioner did not qualify in proceedings, dated 31.12.2004, necessary s1 eaking orders were issued to the petitioner indicating the reasr ns fbr his non- selection to the post. (c) Aggrieved Lry the above rejection orders, dated 37 .12.2OO4 , the petitioner filed a Writ Peti: on before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking lirection to the respondentsto quash the said speaking orderr; While so, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its ;ommon order, dated 03.01.2OO7 inter alia in W.P.No.l5O9ri of 2005 and batch, passed the following " 1. The petitioners are at libertg to prodtt e a.ll the releuant mateial before th.e Chief General Mant tger of the respondent orgoni-zation on or before 21O2-07 to sub stantiate their claim.

2. On receiuing such mateial, the Chief Gener c L Manager i.s directed to reconsider tlrc case of tLrc petiti<n .ers in the hght of the material to be produced bg the petit tners and the record auailable with tlem and pass e spectking order os expeditiouslg as possible." (d) In pursuance of the above orders ;f the Hon'ble High Court, vide proceedings, dated Oit OS.2OO7, the Superintending Engineer/Operation/ DpE/ NI,DC Ltd., was 1 l i I l l I l I 8 appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enqrriie into the material t1 produced by the petitioner for considering his case for the post of LDC. The Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry submitted that the service certificate produced by the petitioner is not genuine. The respondents after a detaiied examination of the report, accepting r,r,ith the hndings of the trnquiry Officer, rejected the case of the petitioner for the post of LDC vide proceedings, dated 28.O2.2OO8" (e) In pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated

03.01.2007 in W.P.No.15O95 of 2005, the petitioner hled the contempt case in C.C. No.L74 of 2008, and.the same was dismissed. Thus, the petitioner had failed to prove the gefiuineness of the service certificate produced by him. Thus, the action taken by the respondents herein rejecting this case is justified. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

8. A perusal of the impugned Order, dated 28.02.2008 shows that the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner by observing as follows: Duing the enqtiry, the contractor deposed that he has not maintained any registers. The petitioner Si C. Jaya I / 9 Singh also admitted tluzt he did not sign in the tr or u)age register. Their aboue uersion makes it the mand.atory nortn of tlrc petitioner's eistt:r t rolls of establishment as on 18-O5-1997 has n acceptance. As such the unauailableness of re: the contractor has lost its essence for acceptaLi seruice cerlificate as to ils genuineness' uster roll leor that 'e on the )t gained trds rtith itg of the The aboue foilure on the pant of the petitioner further strengthened uith the reuelation of the .1i G. Rauind-er, Ex-AE/ Ciuil/ Nirmal citing petitioner is unscrupulous and of his signing is ' onlg to the extent of the contractor's petfct uorks during his tenure. 4c.s been ct by Sn. that the onfinable nance of From the aboue, it is euident that the seruice produced bg the petitioner Si T. Narsimhc found not genuine. :ertiJicote Chory is g . The main observation of the authoritirl ; is that the coltractor deposed that he had not maintainerj any registers. The petitioner also admitted that he did not sig: in the muster roll or wage register. Their above version mal:( s it clear that the mandatory norm of the petitioner's existenc€ on the rolis of establishment as on 1 8-05- i 997 has not garrr :d acceptance. Moreover, according to the respondents, Sri. C, Ravinder, Ex AE/Civil/Nirmal, cited the petitioner is dishr nest, and his signature is confined only to the extent of I re contractor's performalce of works dr.rring his tenure. In vie w of the above I 10 lacunae, the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner ,a

10. To fortify their contention, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.6498 of 2OOB r.r,herein similar set of facts were brought before the Court by the petitioners therein ald the same was dismissed by observing as follows: "It is onlg the contract labour, that haue been engaged at a particular point of time, that uere entitled to be regularized, in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36. On an earlier occasion, the cases of the petitioners u)ere rejected, on the ground that theg failed to proue the foct that theg hctue been engaged by labour contractor. When theg approached, this court, a specific direction uas issued to the petitioners, as well as to the respondents, as regards the ueification of record. On their paft, tlrc respondents got a uigilance enquiry conducted. The contractor, who issued the certificates, did not produce ang record, and categoricallg stated thot tte did not maintoin the same. An official, uho endorsed on th.e certificates, refused to appear in tLe enquiry. At one point of time, he deposed that he no doubt endorsed on tlw <nrtificates, but did not ueifg onA record, such os Attendance Regbter, Acquittance Register, etc. With this back ground, the petitioners cannot be said to haue proued their coses that theg haue been engaged as contract labour, on an earlier occasion. Under tLrcse ciranmstances, this court is not inclined to interfere u.tith tLrc tmpugned order." 11 Aggrieved by the above order, the pet.l.oners therein preferred an appeal by filing Writ Appeal No.95ti of 2008 before this Court ald the sarne was dismissed by obs :ruing that the petition involves disputed questions of fact, an: therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the peti ,ion. 1 1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds stated in the rejection r rder are not sustainable in rejecting the case of the pc 1 Ltioner. This a-rgument of the learned counsel for the petitic ner cannot be accepted as once the preliminary documer t i.e. service certificate has lacunae; it calnot be taken into consideration. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is devoirl of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellareous petitions, if any, pendin I in this Writ Petition, shali stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-S.I\ ALLIKARJUNA RAO (tL ASS ISTANTIEGISTRAR , / SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 ? One CC to SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY, Advocate [OPl.l )] One CC to SRI A CHANDRA SHAKER, SC FOR NPD(I . [OPUC] Two CD Copies u, BSRYDL HIGH COURT DATED: 1211112025 ORDER WP.No.21015 of 2008 C C) ( t 1 HL SIA 7 jAN 2026 I v I I ..- r.'.;: ,';t - +::::=a;.' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 5 1 w