The High Court · 2025

for any reco rd ed certifieC b\ the concerrred Divisional Engineer'" As per v,tr r application and Certificates enclosed t herrein' it is observe,l that you are working in SPM shed/V/zn;rparthy of Trernst'or r.ners 6iuision. Whereas the works of SPIvI sheds pertainirq to Transformers repairs are entrustecl 1:o private lg"ncy ;,i. , piece meal rate per transformer reparr irnd the Oiganize ti :n is no way concerned with the labour engaged by tlre private agency to which the transforrrer repair work:; are awarded. Thus, they do not come ttnrler the purvi{3w o1 Contract Labour as mentioned undet' 'll;ruse 11 iO) of tn., Revised Notification, dt. 20-10-2006 H:n':e your iundidutr.,'., cannot be considered for appointme nt to the post rlf -lLlnlor Lineman on contract basis as you hav= failed to s;rtis'y the Criteria of selection as mentioned under Clause lI (6) of revised Notification, dt. 20-10-2006 and your c;rr jidature is negatived. There are no other vg6snqre:s available to consider your candidature: ers fresh candldal:e also, as all vacancies notified are filieC urp by the presently iervice contract labour as per Notification' You we'e subjected to the Pole climbing test as :er the directiorrs of the Hon'ble High Court oF A P' vide rerference cited. H:vrever it will not have any bearing in mucl' as you did not :; ltisfy the Criteria of Selection to conr;id er your candida:u -e. In view of the above your candidatLrre for the post of l-.vl on yearly contract basis is no acceptod and the same is The aborr: Speaking orders are issued in compl ance with the direr:tions of the Hon'ble High Couri of A'P' In W.P.No l, ]946 of 2007 and W.P.No.1174 of' 2t)07 No further:crrespondence in this regard will be entertained' im D uoned Lr.No. The B G M(Per)/AS -[[)er & Ser) lPo-Al9-A2 12020-'r'1 of the 2td resoon ent

18. 02.202o ls ex tracted CGM HRD hereu nd er 9 The Hon'ble High Court by Orders dated 13,11.2019 disposed of W.p.No.24924 oi 2019 filed Oy-C.Venfcatesfr, S/o.Kurumanna in terms of the order Oated Og.Og.ZOtg in W.P.No. t4304 of 2019 directing tne petitioners and respondents as follows: -tne the Petitioners to submit individual representations to the Chief General Manager (HRD) to consider their cases for appointment as Junior Lineman in terms of the undertaking given by the respondents before the Division Bench as well as. th.e Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.A.No. lqSc or ZOOA dated 10.11.2011 and SLp (Civit) No.rsooi_G110 of 2013 dated 25.02.2019, within two weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such representations being received, the respondents shall examinE individual c cases and if the petitioners were denied appointment in terms of Clause (6) (iv) (c) of the revised noiification, the respondents shall consider the cases of petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 2 In compliance of the above Orders of the Hon,ble High Court, your case is carefully examined. Upon careful consideration of the subject matter with reference to the record available the following speaking order is issued: 2.t. That the APCPDCL issued Notification dated 08.06.2006 for filling up 2443 vacant posis of Junior Lineman on Contract Basis. The vacancies notilied to Operation Circle, Mahabubnagar are 364 Nos. Subsequently. revised Notifica[ion was issued on 20.10.2006. As per the selection criteria laid in the Revised Notification dated 20.10.2006 preference is given to the "Presently serving contract labour who uru *o.iing now for manning oF sub-Stations of A.p.Transco/Ap.Discoms with recorded evidence through Sub_Station Loq Books to be certified by the concerned Divisional EngineJr OR presently serving contract labour for any other works in A.P.Transco/A.P.Discoms with recorded evidence of EpF number in his name to be certiFied by the concerned Divisional Engineer.

2.2 Out of 364 vacancies notified in Mahabubnagar Circle, as on date 543 candidates are appointed in pursuance to 10 the notiiir:irtion and various orders of the Hon'blr'r High Court Ori '/erification of records, it is found that' 'lo l have not *ork",: as Contract Labour and thus did not satisfied ihe efigit)itty criteria id in the Revised Notificali rn dated 20.10.200(, 2.3 That rou have approached the Honble Hirlh Court preuiousty vide W.P.No. ll!7412007 and as per tlte orders therein, y( t.r were subjected to the pole climbin(l test on 06.06.2C0',, 2.4 l\ltl"otr,3h you have passed the pole climbing t€st, selection r:rimmittee did not consider your cardilature' iin." uo,l ailed to satisfy the eligibility criteria l e' 6(iv)(a) of Revis:c Notification dated 20.10.2006 (one s'hcruld be presentl'r :;r:rving Contract Labour)' Therefore tl-e st':lection lomnritt:e did n-ot include your name in the list o's':lected candidater; . Further, the reasons for rejecticn cf your candidatu'er for the post of Contract Junior Lineme n 'against the Noti 'ic3tion ciated 08.06.2006 and Revised Nlti 'ication dateci 2(). .0,2006 was also communicated to yorl through the Spetrk ng Orders issued in the year 2007 in crlnpliance to thrj o'd:ri of the Hon'ble High Court in the \rurit l)etition mention er: su Pra. 2.5 In t'te circumstances mentioned above, it stood establisitr:1 that you are found not eligible to be appointed as Contt'a,:t JLM and hence consideration of your case with reference to clause 6 (iv) (c) of revised notificalior dated 20.1{1.21[6 does not arise.

3. Fcr tirefeasons stated above, your representation dated 28.11.2A I 9 requesting for appointment to thrr lost of Junior Lirr -'man against the Notifications dated 03'06'2006 and ,20.1(-.2006 is hereby rejected. 4. These: orders are passed in compliance to the Orders date,j L 1.11.2019 of The Hon'ble High Court in W.P,No il,l924 of 2019. c.T e reltrv;r nt ortion of the or er, dat passed in W,P,No.24924 of 2O19 is extracted hele.U[.dC!i- L.20L9 1 &r 11 This Court, having considered the sdbmissions of both the counsel, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the order dated 09.08.2019 in W.P.No.14304 of 2019 directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the Chief General Manager (HRD) to consider his case for appointment as Junior Lineman in terms of the undertaking given by the respondents before the Division Bench as well as the Hon,ble Supreme Court in W.A.No. 1434 of 2008 dated 10.11.2011 and SLp (Civit) No.15001-15110 of 2013 dated 25.02.2019, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy a copy of this order. U.pon such representation being received, the respondents s.hall examine petitioner,s casi and if the petitioner is denied appointment in terms of Clause (6) (iv) (c) of the revised notification, the respondents shjll consider the case of the petitioner For appointment to the post of lunior Lineman and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period oF eight weeks thereafter. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs T

10.11 oo Dassed in W.A.No .L434 of 2008 rsextr cted hereund er: - rd t dat n rtion fth " We also make it clear that this direction would be applicable to all those candidates, who have not approached this Court but who had applied in pursuance of the aforementioned notifications, subject to passing of the pole climbing test and fulfilment of eligibility criteria.,. E T P.M. N 4 20 w o o7 assed in .11 4of bv the oetittonerandS rs ls extra ed hereu n er:- "Having regard to the fact that this Court in similar Writ Petitions granted interim direction, I deem it proper to issue interim direction to permit the t2 petltiore's to appear for interview and wril-ten test subj{3ct t: the following conditions: --the : petitioners shall satisfy the t:lir:libility 1. criteria c:'ntained in the employment Notification; 2. The s;elections of the petitioners, if any, made shall b: subject to the further orders in the Writ Petitiorr ilnd WPMP. F. Th rrt portion of the order, dated 24.0 7..2092 passed in -$l P No LLIT t2 7is h reu rl- Since ir te rviews in pursuance of the above int€rrirn order were conclucterl to the petitioners, both the counsr:l for the petitionersand:nelearnedStandingCounselfortheresp()ndents agreedfordisposalofthewritpetitionswiththefollowirgorder: The re:;p I n d ent-Co rporation are directed to d:clare the resultsofthtrnterview.Ifanyofthepetitionersarl]rjeclared passed in tht: nterview, then the respond ent-.Corpo r I tirl n shall consider their'(ase for appointment as Contract luniot L nemen, if they are otr€:rwise qualified and eligible for being appointed as such. Accr:rdin 1ly, the writ petitions are disposed of No :osts' G The releva nt oortio of th ord er, dated 09. o19 DA sed in W .P.No.143O4 of 2O19 is extracted he]1r3u.0-dgI-l: Th's Cc,LL t, having considered the rival submissions made by the ier :rned counsel for the respective partie;, s of the cons;ide rc rl view that this writ petition can be (lis )osed of dire,:tirq the petitioners to submit individual represern'ations to the Chief General Managr:r (llRD) to conliid€rr their cases for appointment as Junior -ir^eman in terms ,:f the undertaking given by the respondrlnls before the Divis on Bench as well as the Hon'ble Suprerre Court in W.A.Nc , i 434 of 2O0B dated 10.11.2011 and SLP (Civil) No.15C0 '15110 of 2013 dated 25.02.2019, wi:hin two W weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such representations being received, ihe responOents shall examine individual cases ;nd if tne fetitioners were denied appointment in terms of Clause (6j liry 1.1 of tf,. revised -notification, the respondents shjtt consider the cases of petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior l-in"r.?.n. and pass appropriate orders in aciorOance with raw wttnin a period of eight weeks thereafter. With the above observations, the writ petition is I disPosed of. No order as to costs. r affi avi iI H. Th on en n I o 1 L 2 e r ct h reu nd er;-

4. It is submitted that this Respondent issued Notification dated 8-6-2006 and revised Nolification OateJzO_tO_ZOOO inviting applications for the post of Junior Linemen on yearly contract basis. The Writ petitioner alleged to have applied for the post. However, he was not ca"lled for the interview/pole climbing test. Therefore, he fil6O W.p. No. 77L.74 of 2007. ln pursuance of the interim orders, the l9!i!9n"f was permitted ro pote ctimbing tesr. W.p. No. 71174 of 2007 was disposed of by comfron order dated 24-7-2007 directing to declare tire result oi the pole climbing test and consider the case of the pltitioner for appointment as contract Junior Linemen if they are otherwise qualified and eligible for being appointed as such. In terms of the orders, the Writ petiti"oner was issued with letter dated 25-7-2007 that as per Clause_U (6) of the Revised Notification preference is given to the presenfly serving contract labour who are working for manning of sub-stations, A. p. Trasnco/Discoms, *"n"r"a. the Writ Petitioner was working jn SpM Shed, Waniparthy of Transformers Division and they are in no wiy connected with the labour engaged by the private nq"nlv to whom Transformers repair works are awarded. iherefore, they are not coming under the purview of the contract labour as :q"gili*^il Ctause rr (6) of rhe Revised wotirilition oated 20-10-2006. Therefore, the candidature oi- tn. Writ Petitioner is rejected duly recording tnui no other t4 \ .:.:._ vacancirls are available to consider the candidatlrrl of the Petit'on:r as a fresh candidate as all the vacan,:i -'s notified were filler,: up with the presently serving contrac:t lahour. l. i, In reply to averments made in Para N:, 14, it is sub nitted tlrat the Writ Petitioner cannot re y upon tl^e orders passed in APNPDCL. Sri B.Ri:rrar:handra Rr:c3y and B.Bikshapathy, were considereC ln their cirr,r merits and the Petitioner cannot conrpt:re with tl-ertr, - il, It is submitted that the averments nrade in G'o:nd Nos. (i) & (ii) are misconce ved. The Petiiioner do not fall within the clause 6 (iv) (c) of tf e hlotification. Therefore, the rejection le ttt,:r dated LB- l-2020 is perfectly legal and justified. 1',r, It is submitted that the averrnents r'tade in Grr-nd No. (iii) that similar candid':te s viz., B tl rmachandra Reddy, B.Bikshapathy' and Sri M.Anjaneyulu were considered and appoirrted as -'lr.rn or Linemen is misconceived. Ther Prttitioner ciln rot compare himself with those persons as their cirr lidature was considered on their ovrn merits. \A hr)r€ds the Writ Petltioner herein was v,rorking as r:on .ract labor in SPM (Transformers), l,lilin lenance rryc,rk.s awarded to a private contractor who is req rired to undertake repairs at his own lvo-k shop. T re refore, the Petitioner was not working ars :ontract lablrr as on the date of the notification. 2l. It is submitted that the averments rrrade in GroL nd Nos. (v) & (vi) are misconceived. S nce the P rt tioner do not come within the defin tion of c()r:ract labour is not entitled to seek the bt:nefit of tlre undertaking given before the Hon'ble Division B:rr:h in W.A. No. 1434 of 2008 and batch The aa ditional counter affidavit I respondents1- and in oarticular Dara No.4 is ex ra try--lIc d hereu nder W 15

4. It is submitted that as per the record and information available. Sri B.Ramachandra Reddy worked as Sub_ Station Operator at Chandupatta SuU_Station irom 1_10_ 2000 to 20-10-2006 under the Contractor M/s. Srinivas Transformers Works, Mothukuru, Nalgonda unJ tha ,ur" was certified and attested vide Service Certificate issued by Engineer/O/Bhongir/Nalgonda. the oivisionil 4.1 In respect of Sri B.Bikshapathy, it was certified that he worked as Sub-station Operator'at Sudhala Sub_station from 1-3-2003 to 20-10-2006 under tne Contractor M/s. Srinivas Transformers Works, Mothukuru, Naigonda and the same was certified and attested vide Service Certificate issued by the Divisional Engineer/Elec./Nalgondi Circle. 4.2 In respect of Sri M.Anjaneyulu, records are not available in the department to show that he has been appointed as Junior Linemen or is working with TGSpDCL. 4.3 Sri B.Ramachandra Reddy and Sri B.Bikshapathy, were appointed as Junior Linemen, as they worked as Sub_ Station Operators and working as on the Oate of issuance of the Notification dated 8-6-2006/20_10_2006. Thus. they were appointed as Junior Linemen in terms of the undertaking given in W.A. No. 1434 of 2OOB and batch and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. rm ton N o D T h WNP AE- T h D No. L4 o22 a

3.1 o22 ob er un R A o5 nr t 7 22 is extracted here unde ti- With the above reference 1.t cited information asked by the (1) above applicant is furnished as follows: L h circl 2 N tnem n Backlo sts as r Juni t wise fille Wa a Pos T SP D B follows: - t6 ii', BC-A 0 BC.I] BC-D 0 10 BC-E 03 SC 10 ST 02 OC IO]AL Th A re( court in the iudomen t reDo edi o22 SCC Online li--C- 232 in Sunil Kumar Rai & Others-Vs' State l!,_!L of Bi har & Cthers dt. 21.o2.20 22 at Paras 7. A, observed as u nder : Para 7': Article 32 of the Constitution provile,; for a Fundanrr: rtal Right to approach the Supreme C:urt for eniorcenr:nt of the Fundamental Rights. The flunding fathers contemplated that the very right to apFroach this Cour.t rvl-en there is a violation of Fundamen:al Rights, shourld br, declared as beyond the reach of Parliem',)nt and, ther,-.fo'; it is as a part of judicial review tha - the right under r\rj icle 32 has been put in place and irrvok:d from time to t re. That in a given case, the Court ma 7 r=fuse to entertain ,: petition under Article 32 of the Ccnstil:ution is sole y : part of self-restraint which is exercised by the Cour[ rt,: ring regard to various considerations wrich are gerrnaTre to the interest of justice as a so the appfop'i:teness oF the Court to interfere in a particular case. Tht, r-ight under Article 32 of the Constituti()n remains a FLrnda'.ental Right and it is always open t(, E person complain rrg of violation of Fundamental Rights t') erpproach this,:cLr.t. This is, no doubt, subject to the pow(ir of the Cou't tr tlegate the party to other proceedings. r 77 Para 8 :At the heart of the Constitution lies certain principles which have, in fact, been recognised as part of the basic structure. Article 14 of the Constitution proclaims right to equality. The right against unfair State action is part of Article 14. Unequals being treated equally is tabooed under Article 14 of the Constitution. A person entitled to be treated as a member of Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, cannot be treated on par with a person who is brought in by an incompetent Body, viz., the State in the manner done. Article 21 of the Constitution again is the fountain head of many rights which are part of the grand mandate which has been from time to time unravelled by this Court giving rise to the theory of unenumerated rights under the Constitution. While liberty is a dynamic concept capable of encompassing within it a variety of Rights, the irreducible minimum and at the very core of liberty, is freedom from unjustifiable custody.

10. We may take up the first preliminary objection by the State, namely, that the petitioners have approached this Court with considerable delay. The impugned Notification is issued in August, 2016. A person cannot be said to be aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of a law by itself. In fact, the Court may refuse to examine the legality or the validity of a law or order on the basis that he may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved person. No doubt, the Courts have recognized challenge to. even a legislation at the hands of a public interest litigant. However, we may only indicate, ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause oF action and therefore, a -r -€ € 18 perscr -rust be an aggrieved party to rna ntain a cha lerqtt: We must not be oblivious to the fact that based on i.he \l itification, it appears that FIRs came to be lodged by per;o-,s claiming to be members of the ScheCu ed Tribe commrrr ty and seeking to invoke the 1989 Ac:. lhe FIRs lodclei - the year 2020 occasioned the pet:iti:)ners to approa c' Courts seeking protection under Sec:.io't 438 of the Cr,P (-. Two of the petitioners have not secu-ed such protecl:ior. Petitioner No. 1, it appears was nc,t ,rrrested. But r:v:r assumlng for a moment, that the petit orers have conre \! th some delay, we find reassuranr:e f rom the opinion )r this Court in the judgment reporterl i,r Assam Mahasangha v. Union of India (2015)_-'i SCC 1, Sanmilil,; wherein :'lis Court has inter alia held as follows:-

32. ".....Further, in Olga Tellis 1,. Bombay 14t nicipal Corpn., it has now been conclusivelv held that all fundamental riqhts cannot be \va ived (at para 29). Given these im porta nt rlerrelopments in the law, the time has come for when it e orLes to this Court to sav that at \f tc,lations of the fundamental riqht to life and I)e rsonal libertv, delav or laches bv itself tl nart lre snffi a e ntt6 sh lrf \vt' h rrr rt mrlre w(l th(! doors of the court on anv oetitionelr."' 11, ]-herefore, we do not think we detair.erl by the obiection. We would think that delav cannot be used as a weaDon to veto an bv itsgt_l under Article 32 when violat ion of ental Riqhts is clearlv at stake. aglis.n-- Fundam D ISC U SS IO N. AIID-C9N€LITSTAN,: D.ISG]IISS.I.9N.:: "l l' W 19 5 un e! n t- rth h I tn s al of n i) 3 rt' The impugned order, dated 25.O7.2OO7 issued by the respondent informing the petitioner that the petitioner's candidature cannot be consadered for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman on contract basis as the petitioner failed to satisfy the criteria of selection as mentioned under Ctause II (6) of revised notification, dated 2g.1O.2006 is without application of mind by quoting a non existing Clause_U (6) of the revised notification. ii) The petitioner is presenuy serving contract tabour for other works in A.p. Transco/DISCOM (CPDCL) i.e., for SpM Transformer works and the petitioner had submitted his service certificate issued by the concerned DE as such the petitioner ought to have been given preference to petitioner's contract labour service and petitioner ought to have been appointed as Junior Lineman on par wath petitioner in W.p.No. 7497 ot ZOOI. iii) The respond€nts failed to adhere to their undertaking in W.A.No.1484 of 2O08 & batch. +.- 2 20 iv) The pe1:itioner has to be appointed by following the dicta of the Frigh Court in W.P.No.7497 ol 2OO7 and also the underta <irtg in W.A.No.1434 of 2OO8 & batch. v) The sp:cific plea in the impugned order, dated 25.07.2OA7 o" the 3'd respondent herein that SPtti sheds Wanaparthl' etre under the private agency is not correct since Sub sj:a':ions as well as SPM sheds will be given on contract ba:;i: to the registered electrical contractors. vi) The respondents have wrongly interpteted the preference ( lause, presently serving contract labour definition :rn d appointed only the substation contract labour working between 08.06.2006 to 20.10.2006 by taking the clder age alone (Clause 6 (iv)(c)') as the Selection crir:eria without reference to their length of service whi:h is incorrect and illegal. vii) The 3'd respondent appointed total 543 carrdidates though 611,7 164 vacancies were notified to comply with the underlai<ing only with a view to continue the substation ,:ontract labour who were illegally appointed as the JLM. i I I i I I i j i l & 2L viii) The respondents have already appointed simitar candidates like the petitioner herein who also worked in SPM sheds, Nalgonda as contract labour as Junior Lineman in July, 2OO7 and on 22.02.2O20 by adhering to the undertaking given in W.A.No.1 434 of 20Og & batch without reference to the notified vacancies. ix) In response to petitioner,s application, dated 27.O9.2O22 under RTI Act, petitioner received response through letter, dated 13.10.2022 and as per the said information, there are 37 vacancies after filting 33 vacancies. Therefore, the petitioner can be accommodated against one of the said vacant post. x) The order impugned, dated 18.02,202O ot the 2nd respondent clearly indicates that on the ground that the petitioner failed to satisfy their eligibitity criteria 6 (IV)(a) of the revised notification, dated 2O.tO.2006. therefore, the petitioner,s name is not included in the list of selected candidates and to that effect speaking orders had already been issued to the petitioner in the year 2OO7 vide letter, dated 25.O7.2OO7 of the 3'd respondent, the petitioner had been denied appointment to the post of 22 L,i Junior Linetn;tn on contract basis arbitrarily contrary to the spirit of the orders of this Court, dated OS)'C}8'2O19 passed in r/V P.No.14304 of 2019 and the order, dated

10.11.2OO9 p;tssed in W.A.No. L434 ot 2OO8 & batclh' xi) The 2n't respondent ignored the orders, dated O9.O8.2O1.9 prssed in W.P.No.143O4 of 2019 in respect of similar 6 ('v)(c) effected contract labour like the petitioner herein and the orders, dated 13.11'20 l'9 passed in W.P.No.24'124 of 2O19 filed by the petitioner hrerein atrd others and d':nied relief to the petitioner, on the ground that petitioner had not challenged the letter,, dated 25.07.2OO7 is;sued by the 3'd respondent in the Yeat 2OO7 itself ignoring the subsequent orders, obtained by the petitioner irt petitioner's favour i.€., order, dated 13.11.2019 rassed in W.P.No.24924 of 2O19 and the order, dated 26.O4.201O passed in W.P.No.9O16 'cf 2O10 filed by the petitioner and two others. 5a The _l: rn atl cou ft sal art6a an ltar artt behahi ^f +ha oetitioner b rsed on the above referred s ubmissions contended __that the Writ Petit -AllfWCd--aS oraved foj. 23

6. The lear ned andi nqc unse AD a rin onbehalf of the official res on dents he IN ainlVD t-fo u i) The Writ petition filed by the petitioner.is misconceived. ii) The petitioner filed the present Writ petition challenging the proceeding, dated 18.02.2O2O and 25.07.2OO7 without giving any sufficient reason for the delay and latches in challenging the proceedings, dated 2s.o7.2007. iii) The petitioner was not considered as a contract employee in terms of the revised notification, dated 20.10.2006 and the petitioner is deemed to have waived his right for appointment as Junior Lineman since the petitioner failed to chaflenge the speaking order, dated 25.O7.2OO7 when the petitioner filed W.p.No.gO16 of 20tO and the subsequent writ petitions. iv) The petitioner is not eligible to be considered an terms of the judgment in W.A.No.14g4 ot 2OOg & batch, dated 10.11.2009 v) Successive representations and filing of W.p.No.24924 of 2O19 does not give any cause of action to the writ 24 petitioner tr> :hatlenge the proceedings, dated zli.Ct7.2OO7 at this lengl:h of time. vi) The petitioner cannot rely upon the orders passed in respect of one Sri B.Ramachandra Reddy and B.Bikshapal:h since they were considered on 'thrlir own merits and the petitioner cannot be compared with them. vii) The pel:itioner was not working as contract labour as on the date cf notification and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to seek the benefit of the undertakin'q given before the t)ivision Bench in W.A.No.1434 o"F Z0O8 & batch. Based on the aforesaid sub missions. the learned des (Irrated counsel ao arino on behal f of the official restlo entitled fot' I:he relief as Draved for in the pres ner is not Petition . a ngt. therefore the Writ Petitio n need stobe dismissed iL.limini. CONE4LSI,( )_N:: 7 Claus e. 6 (iv) (c) of the notification is racted nder: - 6 Cr tc ria for Selection: ivJ If conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) above are fulfilled preference will be given to the experience as noted below, c. If more than one contract labour apply for the post, the contract labour with earlier date of Oiittr will be given preference for selection.

8. Cri a s ecti a er he VI n n

0.1 .20 u er:-

6. Criteri a for electton !)SSLC/SSC/10 Class with ITI qualification in Electrical/Wireman trade or Intermediate Vocational course in Electrical trade is compulsory. ii) The Operation Circle/District will be the unit of a ppointment. iii)Pole Climbing is compulsory. iv) _If conditions (i), (il) and (iii) above are futfilled preference will be given to the experience as noted below a. Presently serving contract labour who are working now fo.r. manning of Sub-Stations of A.p.Transco/Ap.Discoms with recorded evidence through Sub-Station Log Books to be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer. OR Presently serving contract labour for any other works in A.P.Transco/A.P.Discoms with recorded evidence of EpF number in his name to be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer. b. If contract labour and fresh candidates apply for the post, the contract labour will be given preference for selection. c. If more than one contract labour apply for the post, the contract labour with earlier Date of Birth will be given preference for selection. d. If there are only fresh candidates who apply for the post, the marks obtained in the qualifying examination will be criteria for selection.

9. It is specific case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, that the petationer failed to fall within the Clause 26 (.) 6(iv)(c) of the revisect notification and therefore, the petitioner's c;rse could not be considered for apF'ointment of Junior Lin 3man and the cases of Sri P.Rama<:handra Reddy and P, Bikshapathi were considered on thrrir own merits and the petitioner cannot compare with them and the rejectir)r letter, dated 25.07 '2OO7 issuerd to the petitioner harl not been challenged by the petitione'r at the earliest poirrt of time and therefore, petitioner's r:ase is hit by latches.

10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respond€lnt Nos. 1 to 3 at trara No.4, a specific stand is taken that the petitioner tre'ein is not coming under the purview of the contract labour as specified in Clause II (VI) of the revised not fi :ation, dated 2O.10.2006.

11. A bare perusa! of the criteria of selection extracted above cleally indicates that the stand taken at para NO.4 of the counterr affidavit (referred to and extracted above) that the carrdidature of the petitioner is rejected since the petitioner is rot coming under the purview of the 'r:ontract tabour as specified in Clause II (6) of the revised notification, dated 20.1O.2006 is not tenabl,e since I :; ri',:.. ..-n t '? j 7 admittedly as borne on record. The said clause II (6) is a non existing clause and on this ground alone, this Court opines that the petitioner's case for appointment of Junior Lineman has to be reconsidered. The additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents para No.4 (referred to and extracted above) and para No.l9 of the counter affidavit clearly indicates that orders in respect of Sri P.Ramachandra Reddy and p.Bikshapathi had been issued appointing them as Junior Lineman and also the fact that they worked under private contractors is also not disputed at para No.4 & 4.1 of the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, but however it is contended that they placed service certificates in respect of the said work done by them which had been issued as duly certified and attested by the Divisional Engineer concerned i.e., Divisional Engineer, Nalgonda and Bhongir. In respect of the petitioner however, curiously a stand is taken that petitioner worked for a private agency both by the 3'd respondent in the impugned proceedings, dated 25.O7.2OO7 and the 2nd respondent in the impugned proceedings. dated 1g.02.2020. 611

12. A bare perusal of the criteria of selection as per the revised notifi':ation, dated 20.1O.2006 (referred to and extracted altove) clearly indicates that the stand t;aken in the counter atfidavit filed by the respondent Nos' 1 to 3 at para Nos. 13 & 21 that the petitioner does not fall within Clause O ( iv ) (c) of the notification and t'helrefore' petitioner's c;tse cannot be considered' This Courrt opines that the sairJ :lause (referred to and extracted above) has no reteva n ce, rn vl born on rec rd th id cl r-u.ie admittedlv had been challenqqd bv few other simila[6 (iv) (c) effected contract labour-wh!-]/C-fC denied ADD(rirltment as lunior Lineman like the pgtition-ef herein bv frli'lo W.P No.14304 of l'ltils Court a of vide order ia rTle was isDose o9 08.2019 --djrectinq the petitioners therein to su-b-t!il!-a tation totheC ief Gen era I _Manaqer, detailed rep! 'ese (HRD) to c orrsider the cases for aDDointment lu tor n Lin eman in terms of the unde akino qiven bv before lhat the resoond e n ts resoondent --r:ompanv is readv to absorb and-se.lcc!-lhg said writ oet:itioners who were cted due t ivision Bench D v c of t hr: revi ed notifica ion, date d 20.10 .2O06 and { l i. i l1 .; ; t : I I I 0 29 further, the Divi sion Bench clearl vobserved that the rre onw d II a have not ADD ched this Court b t who had DDIi u a emen on n t e e d li bin sa ew rer a 2 19i SLP N o 1 511 o r

2013. e This Court find no ustific rn rei ctino the e u v1 e din el iti n u d r e s ted 2 .o7.2 V! n

8.O2.2 znd re e h tc I o r n J n o f ea I 7 r o e e r f Cou b e m ed r er d d 2s. .20 7 rs h ref tr s e f, UT o r 3 .20 e r nw .No.11 7 2 o1 w.P 901 2010 .F 30 s and ordg_r 4 of ZOL and alsr) asDer the view of the Aoex Courll and the n w.P.N 2 ated 1 1 s made there under in the iudq ment reported observa in 2022 In rQ& State of E.L Others Vs. sfenred to and extracted above, wherein it is clearlv ob served that delav orl ches bv itself without more would not be sufficient to shut the sL lors of the Court on a VDn etition e r. This Court oDines that the reore sentatlon of t,etition€,J-_, dated 06.03.2019 ursuance to the orders of the Division Bench, dated 1O.11.2OO9 in W,A.No. L434 of 20O_$-31r1d the leoal notice on behalf of the petitioner, ,tnD dated 2(1.(14. 19 iss tn ur iudqment LP Civil o.15OO1-1 to th Oof pex court

13. dated

25.O2.20 1l) whic h admitted had not been con sidered as on date__. sho sidere resoo nde,1-1. t Nos.l to 3 her er n.

13. Thi s Court also takes note of the fact that at Dara No.4 of the co u nter affidavit responde n1 No.4 as ecr fic tl eaist filed on half of candidatrr r f h wrl etitioner i e d record in c that no other vacanc s are ltvalab!c_-!s n e d a r A t N n er sa a n sn ifie WE w a r n 1 o.2 22 e b alf the eti II e h r e ated tha eti oner 7 h s o2 nd r he ide I r rm ron 1

10. 22 s as on 13.10. 2022 after th r ar 37 d ume t, da d13 .LO.2 22. i documen Exhibit P4 bv the Detitioner t fillino 33 vacan res. The said inf ct filed as mate al herei nrns DDO of h ir fi d c OD nes the tesDo dents affidavit filed on 12.10. 2022 m! n e f, ex stino vacan cies before this thro uoh their counter ade na emot ou rt and the sa ets ot n a m s e d a rbitra rily. II e I t e 32 I I

14. rn.the- liqht of the discussion and conllusl-g-n--as arrived at aS a bov at Dara Nos.5 to1 iud qme nt. i:his for the relit ,;[.as oraved for in the oresent Writ PStition' entitled o ne h h e u r

15. Takinainto consideration:- a) The lf oresaid facts and circumstances of thti: case' b) The submissions put-forth by both the learned counsier on record. c) The a uerments made in the counter affidavit filed by tlre respondent Nos'1 to 3 (referreid to and extracted above) d) The averments made in the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos' 1 to 3 (referred to and extracted above) e) The order impugned, Lr'No'SE/OPlMBNFL/POlAdm- C2ltr"t{o,1226-30l07, dated 25'O7'20O7 issued by the:i'c respondent (referred to and extracted above) f) Ttre contents of order impugned Lr'No'llGM(HRD)/ GM(l'er)/AS(Per & Ser)/PO-A/9'A2/2O2A-23 of the 2nd res;pondent, dated L8..o2'2O2O, letter Nc)(referred to atrd extracted above) I 33 g) The relevant portion of the order, dated 13.11.2019 passed in W.p.No.24924 ol 2Ol9 (referred to and extracted above) h) The retevant portion of the order, dated 10.11.2O11 passed in W.A.No.1 434 ot 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above) i) The interim order, dated 3O.OS.ZOO7 passed in W.P.M.P.No.L3946 of 2OO7 in W.p.No.t LU4 of 2OO7 filed by the petitioner and g others (referred to and extracted above) j) The final order, dated 24.07.2OO7 passed in W.P.No.l1174 ol 2OO7 (referred to and extracted above) k) The relevant portion of the order. dated O9.O8.2019 passed in W.p.No.14304 of 2}tg (referred to and extracted above) l) The counter affidavit fited by the respondents and in particular para Nos.4, 17, ,'gt ,g, 20 (referred to and extracted above) m) The additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents and in particular para No.4 (referred to and extracted above) 34 n) The )rder, dated 26-O4.2OLO pasisr:d in WPMP.Nrl.1165O of 2O10 in W.P.No.9016 of 2O1O filed b1'the petitioner alonE with two others' o) The o,'der, dated 09.08.2019 passerd in W.P,Nc,.143O4 oJ 2O19 filed by similar r5 (iv)(c) effected contract labour who were denied appointntent as JLM like the petitioner herein p) The. inf-g) rmation. Lr.No.P O/DE/Tech tc.ol B4IJPIAE: IcqhlI).1,1o.241 412022 dated 13.1O. o22. -qbtaircd bvlhc-p.,:titioner under the RTI ACt,2005 in resoonse to peEll:ioner's representation/aoolicatigtl dated 22 (referred to and extracted abo 27_lLO9.- 2 This Court opines that the petationer is entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Ttte order impugned vide Lr.No'SE/OP/'MBNR/ POlAdm-C 2/D.No.L226'3O/07, dated 2t;-Q7.2OO7 issued blr the 3'd respondent and the order impugned vide l-r.trlc,,cGM(HRD)/ GM(Per)/AS(Per & Ser)/PO- A/g-A2/:LO2A-23 dated 18.02.2020 of the 2nd responde n': is set aside and the matter is re m itted to the resporrdent Nos. 2 & 3 herein to consirder the 35 representation of the petitioner, dated O6.O3.2019 and legal notice, dated 2O,O4.2OLI issued on behalf of the petitioner pertaining to appointment of the petitioner as Junior Lineman on par with the others in terms of the order, dated 13.11.2O19 in W.p.No.249 24 of 2Ot9 and in terms of the undertaking recorded, dated 10.11.2011 in W.A.No.1434 of 2OO8 & batch which was giterated in the order, dated 2S.O2.2Otg in SLp(Civil) r fo.15O01-15110 of 2013 in the existing vacancies [ithin a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of pceipt of copy of the order in accordance to taw, duly fking into consideration all the observations made in [e present judgment. However, there shalt be no order as to costs. t r t\ t Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition, sha ll stand closed. t) j --u- //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR t-- _ /\r SECTION OFFIbER One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble MRS JUSTTCE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her Ladyships Kind perusal) - To Affairs, New Delhi.

1. '11 LR Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia lVlinistry of Law, Justice and Company 3 The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court 4. The chairman and lrrranaging Director, Terangana State Southem power D,istribution Company Limited, having its Corfioraie Offrce li r_f .No. O-_i-]sO, Mtnt Compound. Hvderabad 500063. Telanobna State. Buildings, Hyderabad.

5. The Cr'ef tlt,neral i\4aniger(HRD1, iS SedCf, Corporate Olfice, H.No.6-1- 150, IV nt Oo npound, Hyderabad 500063, Telangana Stiat:.

6. The Su:er nt:nding Engineer, (Operation), TSSPDCL. lVla ra'tub nagar, Mahabubn ag ar District, Telangana State

7. One CC to S ?l IV.V.RAIVIA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to [r]'r; K UDAYA SRl, SC FOR TSGENCO [OPtJ(]l 9. One C(l to S rl B RAMULU, SC FOR TSSPDCL [OPUC] 10. Two CD Cor-- e,s PSK GJP \s HIGH COUIR-I DATED:01 l'0!112025 ORDER WP.No.1709tl of 2021 I:]C TODAY (i ,'=- a1= iPi r' 4 rr-: +o( tll ,,ii' ?ll5 e i) \\ --^ \k \: .. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CI)STS 6rof'' W