The High Court · 2025

THE HOI\I''BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.2O956 OF 2OO8 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the follo',i,ing relief: "...to declare the action of the respondents irt rejecting petitioners case for being appointed as LDC as illegal ar.d arbitrary and set-a-side the letter No.CGM(HRD)/ GM(IR&L)/ AS-(L)/ Po-H-s/ wP /vo. 4(;29/ 2005-OB dt.28.O2.2008 issued by the 2nd re.spondent. Consequently, direct the respondents to ap,point the petitioner as LDC duly granting all other corlsequential benefits on part with his colleagues wt'Lo were selected and appointed in teruns of Nt,tiftcation, dated 2 4. 04. 200 1 . "

2. HeeLrd Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Telangana, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material rlvailable on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows (a) The petitic^rer worked as a Contract Labour in the office of the 3.drespondent from 01.08.1994 to 05.11.1999. BP Ms.No.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%o posts of initial recruitment cadre should be filled in considering the 2 Ex-Casual labour, Contract Labour and VEWs. The 3'd respondent issued a Notification, dated 24.O4.2OO1, calting 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 full.v qualified and eligible for being appointed as LDC, he had submitted his application along with all the certificates including the service certificate issued by the contractor and counter signed by the departmental officials. (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 selection and the sarne was placed on the Notice Board. 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.O 1.2003 holding that there are no successful candidates and the result of interview held as "NIL". l 3 (.) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P No.6546 of 2003 before this court. The said Writ Petition was adjudicated along with the batch of Writ Petitions i.e. W.P No.5158 of 2003, dated 2a.rc.2oo4. While adjudicating the above bzrtch of writ Petitions, this Court categorically observed as follou's: "lt is for the respondent board to uerify the certificates prctduced by the petitioners utith reference to the ag,'eements anu.vded to the contractor, which were uetified and counter signed by the official respondents. Therefore, the action of the respondents in simply rejzcting the cases of the petitioners based on the Vigyilance lnspector's report on the growtd that the contract has not produced the aforesaid registers ls unreasonable and unsustainable. Accordingly, the re:;pondents are directed to uerify the certificates issued by the contractor and counter signed by the officials of the respondents uith reference to the a.greements under wltich partiatlar contract labours are engaged as on 18.O5.1997 anJ. consider tLrcir cases for appointment in accordance with BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.O5.1997" Dr:spite such direction given by this Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated 31.L2.2oo4 rejecting the petitioner's case on the ground that the petitioner claims to have vrorked from 01.08. 1994 to 05.11.1998 under K2 agreemont No.22 /96-97. The petitioner was therefore not on the rolls; as on 18.05. rggr and hence could not be considered. 4 !I- \*:T (d) Aggrieved by the sarne, the petitioner once again filed W.P.No.4629 of 2005, challenging the letter, dated

31.12.2004. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated

03.01.2OO7 disposed of the rvrit petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to produce all the relevant material before the 2"d respondent. Pursuant to the above direction, petitioner submitted representation, duly enclosing the education qualifications and also service certificates and requested to appoint him as LDC in terms of BP Ms.No.36, dated

18.05. lgg7. However, without considering the submissions made by the petitioner, in gross violation of the earlier orders passed by the court in WP No.5746 of 2OO3, the 2"d respondent issued Memo, dated 28.O2.2OO8, once again rejecting the petitioner's case. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the order, dated 28.02.2008 issued by the 2"d respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner'submits that the respondents are bent upon to reject the case of the petitioner on one pretext or the other. The service certificate produced by the petitioner clearly establishes that he worked as Contract Labour from 01.08.1994 to O5.11.1998 under K2 agreement No.22/96-97 and the said certificate was even counter signed by the departmental officials. As such, he is a contract labour as on the cut of date i.e. 18.05. lgg7, iherefore, by showing ./- 5 those untenable reasons, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his appointment. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter and submits e s follou,s: (a) 'lhat in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05. 1997 orders \^rere issued for filling up of 50% of the existing vacant posts of LDCs/Tycist/JPOs/Ex-Casual Labour/VEWs and contract Labour ,:xisting as on that day subject to fulfilling the conditions mentioned therein. Accordingly, Notification \ras issued orr 28.04.2OO1 inviting the applications from the desired candidat:s. While so, inasmuch as the petitioner herein, u'ho applied or the post of LDC/'llpist, had failed to oblige the conditions laid down therein, he could not be selected. Since no succ(:ssful candidates were available in the interview, NIL results v/ere notified in the daily Newspaper. (b) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed Writ Petition seeking directions to. the respondents to declare the said results as illegal. In pursuance oi the above, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated

28.10.2r)04 in WP.No.S158 of 2003 & W.P.No.6546 of 2003 and batch, s,et aside the above NIL results and directed to consider the cas,: in.ter alia of the case of the petitioner in the light of 6 observation made in B.p(p&G-per) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05. L997. In pursuance of the above order, since the petitioner did not qualify in proceedings, dated 3r.t2.2oo4, speaking orders \ rere issued to the petitioner indicating the reasons for his non-selection to the post. (c) Aggrieved by the above rejection orders, dated

31.12.2004, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High court of Andhra Pradesh seeking directio.r' to th. respondents to quash the said speaking orders. while so, the Hon'ble High court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated 03.01.2oo7 in w.P.No.4629 of 2oo5 and batch, passed the following: " 7. The petitioners are at liberty to produce all the releuant material before the Chief General Manager of tLrc respondent organization on or before 24-02-07 to sub stantiate their claim.

2. On receiuing such material, the Chi{ General Manager is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in t?rc light of the material to be produced bg the petitioners and the record auailable with them and pass a speaking order as expeditiouslg as possible.o (d) In pursuance of the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court, vide proceedings, dated O2.OS.2OOT, the Superintending Engineer/Operation/ DpE/ NPDC Ltd., was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the material /1 7 - I I produced by the petitioner for considering his case for the post of LDC. The Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry r;ubmitted that the service certificate produced by the petitione;' is not genuine. The respondents after a detailed examinal ion of the report, decisively accepting with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, rejected the case of the petitioner for the post of LDC vide proceedings, dated

28.O2.2008. (e) [n pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court cf Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated

03.Ol.2C:OT in W.P.No.4629 of 2OO5, the petitioner filed the contempt case in C.C. No.173 of 2008, and the same was dismissed. Thus, the petitioner had failed to prove the geiruineness of the service certificate produced by him. Thus, the action taken by the respondents herein rejecting this case is justifi,-.d. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. FINDIN(}S OF THE COURT:

6. A perusal of the impugned Order, dated 28.02.2003 shows that the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petil.ioner by observing as follows: "7,\e contractor during the enquiry has reuealed" that he has issued seruice certifi"cate to Si G. Omprakash, but "-'- \* .* 8 records are not auailable uith him, because nobody has told him to maintain records. FIis said utterance of unauailability of records in guise of that he has not been sensitized or not informed bg anybody is purelg a manufactured and iruuented one for his easg way out from his contractual obligations inter alia from the producibility of the mandated records under Labour Act. His said lying act will not legalise the wrongous seruice certifi.cate issued by him. His agreeability to the utork awarded to him lays down a binding force on him for the scrupulous maintenance of records a,s per the statutory Acts and to keep them updated for pentsal until the agreemenf loses ils essence for its enforcement. Thus the seruice certificate which u;as issued bg him euidently has lost irs substantialism. The taking awaA of K2 agreements bg the APTS wing has no bearing to deterrnine the genuineness of the seruice certiftcate. The seruice certificate about petitioner's working under the aboue contractor from 1-8-1994 to till date (i.e. 5.11.99) is false and deceptiue as Lrc himself deposed during the enquiry t?wt his period of seruice with the contractor is from 08/ 94 to 09/ 95. Tlrus, he failed to oblige the conditions laid down in BP ((P7G-Per) Ms.No.36 dt. 18-5-1997. As aboue, there is a seious deuiousl?ess in tlp seruice certificate produced. by the petitioner. From the aboue, it is established that the concept of unauailableness of record.s has losf its significance to defend the correctness of !fu seruie certificate in the matter. The petitioner resorted,.to deceitful methods bg wag of producing a fake certificate. x E 9 Thus, it is found that the seruice certificate produced by the petitioner Sri G. Omprakash is not genuine."

7. The main observation of the respondent authorities is that the contractor during the enquiry revealed that he had issued service certificate to Sri G. OmprakaSh, but records are not available with him. He is under obligation to produce the mandated records under Labour Act. The work awarded to him, lays down a binding force on him for the thorough mainten;lrce of records as per the Statutory Acts and to keep them updated for perusal until the agreement loses its essence for its e nforcement. Thus, the service certificate which was issued by him evidently has lost its significance. According to the respondent authorities, the service certificate which refers petitione:r's ',r,,orking under the above contractor from

01.O8. 1q94 to 05.11.1999 is false and deceptive as he himself deposed cluring the enquiry that his period of service with the contraclor is from 08/94 to 09195. Thus, he failed to oblige the conditions laid down in BP ((P7G-Per) Ms.No.36, dated

18.05. L997. Since the service certificate issued by the Contractor is defective, the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner. \+GA t'...' ' | '7' 10

8. To fortify their contention, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.6498 of 2008 wherein similar set of facts were brought before the Court by the petitioners therein and the same was dismissed by observing as follows "lt is ctnly the corttract l:abour, that haue been engaged at a panlicular poirtt of time, that were entitled to be regularized, in tertns of B.P.Ms.No.36. On an earlier occasion, the cases of the petitioners u)ere rejected, on the grourtcl tltat lh,ey fctiled to proue the fact that they haue been engaged by labour contractor. When theg apprctached this court, a specific direction u.,as issued to the petitiotters, as well as to the respondents, as regards the uerification of record. On their paft, the respondents got a uigtlance enquiry conducted. The contractor, who issued tne certtficates, did not produce any record, and categori.cctlly stated that he did- not maintain the sa.ne. An ofJicial, tuho endorsed on the certificates, refused to appear in the enquiry. At one point of time, he deposed that he no doubt endorsed on the certiftcates, but did not uerify anA record, such as Attendance Register, Acquittance Register, etc. With this back ground, the petitioners cannot be said to haue proued their cases that theg haue been engaged as contract labou6 ort an earlier occasion. Under tlese ciranmstances, thb court is not inclined to interfere utith tLe impugned order." Aggrieved by the above. order, the petitioners therein preferred an appeal by filing Writ Appeal No.95B of 2008 before this Court and the same '*,as dismissed by observing that the :! .i 11 petition i:rvolves disputed questions of fact, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds mentioned in the rejection order, dated

28.02.20,18 is unsustainable. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as while rejecting the clainr of the petitioner, the respondent authorities found that the foundational document i.e. service certificate suffers from maierial lacunae and lacks authenticity. Thus, it cannot be accorrled any evidentiary value for consideration. In view of the foregloing circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Ac<:ordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if &oy, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed SD/.L.VIJAYA LAKSHMI ISTANT REGISTRAR f i1 //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER VASUDEVA REDDY, Ad CHANDRA SHAKER, SC loPUCl NPDCL IOPUC] To

1. One CC;to SRI K. 2. One CC;to SRI A. 3. Two CEtCopies PSK./BSK -& HIGH COURT DATED i12,t1112025 ORDER WP.No.20'956 of 2008 \hL 2t r { :Jv,: I * * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUII COSTS ,$ ,r))/