Effatulla Baig v. 1. Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY Gounsel for the Respondent No.l to 3::SRl A.CHANDRA SHAKER, sc FoR NPDCL The court made the foltowing: oRDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.IESHWAR RAO t ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.2O27O OF 2OOB 'l'trir; Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting petitioner's case for being appointed as LDC a.s illegal and arbitrary and set-a-side tLrc letter Nc'.CGM(HRD)/ GM([R)/ AS(L)/ Po-Hs/ WP 7909/ os-o8 dt. 18.02.2OO8 issued by tlle 2"d respondent. Cc'nsequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as ,DC on par with other candidates ap,pointed pursuant to the Notification, dated 2<t.O4.2001 dulg granting all oth.er consequential be'nefits."

2. Flezrrd Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counser for the petitione: and sri A. chandra Shaker, learned Standing counsel for Northern Power Distribution company Ltd., Telangana, appearing for the respondents. perused the materiirl available or record.

3. Tht: brief facts of the case are as follows: (rr) The petitioner worked as a contract Labour in the office ,.,f the 3'd respondent from 01.0s.1995 to 10.05.2001. BP Ms.llo.36, dated 18.05. 1997 was issued by the erstwhile APSEB, as a consequence of settlement entered into between the Trade Unions and Management, mandates that 50% posts of initial recruitmer,r cadre should be filted in considering the 2 Ex-Casual labour, Contract Labour and VEWs: 'lhe 3.d respondent issued Notification, dated 24.(.;4.2;OOl, calling upon from the eligible candidates to apply for the post of initial recruitment cadre as per BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 . As the petitioner was fully qualified and .eligible for being appointed as LDC or any other initial recruitment cadre, he had submitted an application along with all the certificates inciuding the service certificate issued by the contractor and counter signed by the departmental oflicial. (b) Thereafter, all the applications and certificates produced by the candidates were scrutinized by the officials of the 1"t respondent and thereafter petitioner's narne was included in the list of qualified and eligible candidates for sefection and the sarne was placed on the Notice Board. After conducting the interviews, the respondents have once again referred the matter to Vigilance Authori.ties 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 2nd respondent vide notification dated 30.O1.2003 declared the results of interview as ttNILt'. / 3 (c) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.p. No.3o40 of 2003 before this court. The said writ petition was disposec, of by an order dated 28.02.2004 directing the respond'lnts to consider petitioner's case in the light of observations made in w.P.No.6546 of 2003 and batch for his absorption, pursuant to Bp Ms.No.36, dated 1g.0s. Lggr. Despite such direction given by this court, the respondents issued a letter, dated 08.01.2005 rejecting the petitioner,s case on the ground of agreements indicated in the service certificate were commenced and completed before 1g.05. lgg7 or after

18.05. L997, as such the petitioner cannot be treated as on rolls as on 18.05.1997. (d) Aggrieved by the s€une, the petitioner once again filed w.P.No.79o9 of 2oos, chalenging the letter, dated

08.o1.21105. Having considered, this court by a., order, dated

13.03.2106 set aside the said retter, dated 09.o1.200s and directed the respondents to conduct enquiry and during the enquiry, if it is found that the petitioner to be on the rolls as on

18.05. 1997, then the petitioner's case shall be considered in future rracancies as and when arise, subject to completion of other ccrnditions. Again, letter dated 26.0g.2006 was issued by the 2nd respondent, rejecting the petitioner,s case on the ground that contractor has not maintained the registers \ \ i. i It t i A i 4 according to the Labour Act, l97O and the service certificate issued to him is not genuine. t (e) Ultimately, vide impugned letter dated 18.02-2008, once again the case of the petitioner was rejected holding that the contractor has not engaged anybody'permanently and conditionally. As such, the service certificate issued by him holding that the petitioner worked as contract labour from

03.06.1995 to 30.09 .1999 is not correct and genuine. Having vexed with the rejection orders, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the respondents are bent upon to reject the petitioner's case on one pretext or the other. As per the judgment of this court in w.P.No.3040 of 2003, relying upon the service certificate issued by the contractor, which was counter signed by Departmental Official, the petitioner's case may be considered- But, by disbelieving the said certificates, the petitioner's case cannot be rejected. The impugned letter does not state that the petitioner was not on the rolls as on 18.05. Igg7. Therefore, relying upon the vague allegation of the contractor he did not engage anybody continuously, it cannot be construed that the petitioner was not on rolls as on 18:05.1997.In WP No. 7909 of ,l 5 2005 th:.s court vide order dated 13.03.2006 directed to conduct =nquiry by fixing a date by summoning the contractor and the oetitioners to find out the fact whether petitioner were on rolls as on 18.05.1997 or not. Without any such finding, the case of the petitioner was rejected arbitrarily, which is incorrect. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

5. Lezrrned counsel for the respondents filed counter and submits as follows: (a) That in B.P(P&G-Per) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 orders v/ere issued for filling up of 5Oo/o of the existing vacant posts of LDCs/'llrpist/JPOs/Ex-Casual Labour/VEWs and Contract Labour existing as on that day subject.to fulfilling the conditions mentioned therein. Accordingly, Notification was issued <>n 28.O4.2OO1 from the desired candidates. While so, inasmur:h as the petitioner herein, who applied for the post of LDC/Typist, had failed to oblige the conditions laid down therein, he could not be selected. Since no successful candida.tes were available in the interview, NIL results were notified in the daily Newspaper. (b) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner fited Writ Petition seeking directions to the respondents to declare the said results as illegal. [n pursuance of the above, the Hon'ble r 6 High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated

28.LO.2OO4 in WP.No.S158 of 2OO3 & W.P.No.3O40 of 2OO3 and 'lt'l batch, set aside the above NIL results and directed to consider the case inter alia of the case of the petitioner in the light of observation made in B. P(P&G-Per) Ms.No.36, dated

18.05.1997. In pursLrance of the above order, since the petitioner did not qualify in proceedings, dated 08.01.2005, necessary speaking orders were issued to the petitioner indicating the reasons for his non-selection to the post. (c) Aggrieved by the above rejection orders, dated O8.01.2OO5, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking direction to the respondents to quash the said speaking orders. While so, the Hoh'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated 13.03.20O6 in W.P.No.79O9 of 2OO5 and batch, passed the following: *The respondents are directed to conduct necessary enqtiry with regard to the genuineness of the senie certificates issued. by the contractor in fauour of the petitioners and to uerify as to uhetlrcr t?e petitiorters u)ere on rolls as on 18.05.1997 or ruot so as b ertend tle beneftt of G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Afi,er such enquiry, if it is found. that tlrc petitioners u)ere on rolls as on 78.05.7997, tlrcir claim.s shall be considered in the f ( 7 fuhre uacancies as and when they arise, subject to the contpliance of all other conditions." (d) [n pursLr€rnce of the above orders of the Hon'ble High Co;rt, vide proceedings, dated 02.O4.2OO7, the Divisional Engineei/MRT/Nirmal NPDC Ltd., was appointed as a.n Enquiry Officer to enquire into the material produced by the petitiont:r for considering his case for the post of LDC. The Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry submitted that tht: service certificate produced by the petitioner is not genuine. The respondents after a detailed examination of the report, accepting with the lindings of the Enquiry Officer, rejected the case of the petitioner for the post of LDC vide proceedings, date d 18.O2.2OO8. (et In pursu€rnce of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated

13.03.2006 in W.P.No.79O9 of 2OO5, the petitioner filed the contempt case in C.C. No.226 of 2OO7, and the same was dismiss;ed. Thus, the petitioner had failed to prove the genuin,:ness of the service certificate produced by him. Thus, the action taken by the respondents herein rejecting this case is justi::ied. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. fl, ('t FINDINGS O[' THE COURT:

6. A perusal of the impugned Order, dated L8.O2.2008 shows that the Divisional Engineer/MRT/ Nirmal, duly complying with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., in its order dated. 13.03.2006, held a detailed enquiry and submitted his enquiry report stating that as per the Service Certificate issued to the petitioner, he was engaged as "Contract Labour" from 01.01.1995 to 10.05.2001 under Sri Namdev, Contractor. But the said Contractor during enquiry informed that he had not engaged anybody permanently and continuously. The Agreements quoted in the service certificate in 20 / 97 -98, 24 I 97 -98 & I L / 98-99, whereas the service certificate issued by the Contractor is from 01.01.1995 to 1O.'05.2OO1. Hence, service certificate produced by the candidate is defective and not correct. In the written statement, the petitioner had informed that he does not know pole climbing. Without knowledge of the pole climbing, it is not possible to complete the electricity line erection works and services disconnection and reconnection work. The service certificate issued by the Contractor to the petitioner is defective. In view of the above lacunae, the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner. (" ( 9

7. To fortify their contention, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.6498 of 2OO8 wherein similar set of facts were brought before the Court by the petitioners therein and the same was dismissed by observing as follows: "It is ortly the contract labou6 that haue been engaged at a particular point of time, tlnt were entitled to be reg,ularized, in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36. On an earlier occasion, the cases of tlrc petitioners were rejected, on tfut ground that they failed to proue the fact that they haue been engaged by labour contractor. When theg aporoaclrcd this court, a specific direction uras issued to th<z petitioners, as well as to the respondents, as regards tLuz uerification of record. On their part, the respondents got a uigilance enquiry conducted. The contractor, who is:;ued the certificates, did not produce ang record, and categoically stated fuat lrc did not maintain the same. Att official, who endorsed on th.e certificates, refused to appea"r in the enquiry. At one point of time, he deposed that lrc no doubt endorsed on t?e certiftcates, but did not uefify anA record, such as Attendance Register, Acquittance Register, etc. With this back ground, the pcttitioners canruot be said to haue proued their cases that tl..ey haue been engaged as contract labour, on an earlier occasion. Under these cirstmstanceq thi.s court is not in.clined to interfere uith tlrc impugned order." Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners therein preferr,:d an appeal by filing Writ Appeal No.958 of 2008 before this cc,urt and the same was dismissed by observing that the t\ \ (.r .i\ll I 10 petition involves disputed questions of fact, and thErefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition. B. The contention of the iearned counsel for the petitioner that the ground mentioned in the rejection order, dated L8.O2.2O08 is unsustainable. This argurnent of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the respondent authorities found that the foundational document i.e. service certificate suffers from material lacunae and lacks authenticity, it cannot be accorded any evidentiary value for consideration. [n view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition is d.evoid of merits and the s€une is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if a.ny, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. To, /ffRUE COPYII Sd/-S. MALLIKARJ U NA RAO ASSISTANT s N OFFICER / /

1. One CC to SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCJ 2. One CC to SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKER, SC FOR NPDCL TOPUCI 3. Two CD Copies W BSR/DL HIGH COURT DATEET: 1211112025 / / ORDE]R WP.No.20270 of 2008 :-'13',,.trfA ? I JAt| 2026 t * DISMIT;SING THE WRIT PETITION WITHC)UT COSTS I {b l'l'