The High Court · 2025

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 THE.HON'BJ.E SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU R.,I JESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.27998 OF 2Cr t7 ORDER: This Writ Pe tition is filed seeking the fo1lov ing relief "...to dt'clo.re the acti.ort of tlrc resporul rejectingy petitioner's case for being app:-, r LDC crs Llleclal ancl arbtrarg and sct a side t No.CGM(HRD)/ GM(s)/ AS It/ Po.tv/ 2o2/ o5 1O.09.20O5 issued bg the J'r res . Conseqttentlg, direct the responcl.erts to .lpp petitiottcr as LDC or anA otlter uitial r<'c t codre ort par tuith others, dttL11 g rantingl :i co n s e qul. nlio\ b e nefit s. " nts Ln ted cts e Letter dt. tndent. tint the r.itme.nt L other

2. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned - )unsel for the petitioner and Srr A. Chandra Shaker, 1e'r: necl Standing Counsel for Northern Por'ver Distribution I tmpany Ltd., Telangana, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record

3. The brief facts of the case are as lollows (a) The petitioncr worked as a Contract -abour in the office of the 3,d respondent from 01.04. 1992'. 't 31.08.1999. BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.O5.1997 was issued tr the erstwhile APSEB, as a consequence of settlement entei-('( into between the Trade Unions and Management, mandates 1-rat 507o posts of initial recruitment cadre should be filled ir-l : rnsidering the Ex-Casual labour, Contract Labour and \ I )Ws. The 3.d 2 respondent issued Notification, dated 24.O4.2001, calling upon from the eligible candidates to apply for the post of inrtial recmitment cadre as per BP Ms.No.36, dated

18.05.1997. As the petitioner was ful1y qualihed and eligible for being appointed as LDC or any other initial recruitment cadre, he had submittcd an application along with all the certificates including the service certificate issued by the contractor and counter signed by the departmental official (b) Thereafter, ali the applications and certificates produced by the candidates were scrutinrzed by the officials of the 1"t respondent and thereafter petitioner's name was included in the list of qualified and eligible candidates for selection and the same was placed on the Notice Board. After conducting the interviews, the respondents have once again relerred the matter to Vigilance Authorities for verification of service certificates produced by the selected candidates. Having verified, the Vigilance Authorities reported that, the service certihcate producecl by the petitioner is correct and genuine. After the said report, the respondents issued a Notification published in the Vaartha Telugu daily, dated

13.O1.2003, holding that there were no successful candidates and the result of intervierv held as "NIL" 3 (c) Aggrieved by the above, the peti:i: rer filed W.P No.5746 of 2003 along with others. The said $' it Petition was acljuclicated along with the batch of Writ Pcr i ions- i.e., WP No.5158 of 2003, dated 28.10.2OO4. While alLt"in51 the above bertch of Writ Petitions, this Court categorici,L y obsen'ed as follows: "It is for the respondent board to uerify tha r produced bg the petitioners totth referc't r (Lgreements atuarded to tlle contrQctor, i t ) ueifiecl and counter signed bg the official re: '1-l'terefore, the action of the respottdent:; rejecting lhe cases of the petitioners bas:. Viqilance Inspector's repoft on the groutrd cottract hos not produced the aforesoid rt unreasonable and unsustainable. Accot t i respondents are directed to ueiJy tlrc certiJl:.', t bu the contractor and counter signed by the th.e respondents tuith reference to tLrc agree'r t tuhich porticular contract labours are eng(lc 18.O5.1997 and consider their cases for ap-o t accordance uith BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.O5.I ) :rtillcates ' tc the ich utere' tondents rL stmplu I on the that the' Trsfers is \gla, tlxt es is,suecl l]ficials of ,tts utlcler :d as on. ntment in )7". (d) Despite such clear and categoric:rl lirection given by this Court, the respondents issued 31.12.2004 holding that the petitioner was . rt entitled for letter, dated being appointed as LDC on the ground that 1r titioner's case need not be considered, as he had already a: reared for the intervier,v. Aggrieved by the same, the petit i( r er once again 4 hled W.P.No.5954 of 20O5, challenging the letter, dated

31.12.2004. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated lI.O7.2OO5 set aside tl.re letter. dated 31.12.2OO+ and issued a consequential direction to the respondents to apply mind to the directions and observations made bv this Court in W.P. No.5746 of 2003, datecl 28.10.2004 and pass orders in accordance with law. Once agarn, letter dated 10-09.2005 was issued by ths f,.'a respondent, rejecting the petitioner's request

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 01.04.1992 Lo 31.08.1999. As such, he is a contract labour as on the cut of date i.e. IA .05.1997 , therefore, by showing those untenable reasons, petitioner cannot be deprived of his appointment. The preqent Writ Petition is frled against the impugned Order, dated

10.09.2005.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter and submits as follows 5 (a) That ln B.P(P&G-Per) Ms.No.36, dat:d 18.05.1997 orders rvere issued for filling up of 50% of the xisting ',-acant posts availabie as on 18.05.1997 in the ini.: rl recruitment cadre i e. Sub Engineer / LDCs /Typist I Ex l'. sui'rl Labour / VEWs /& Contract Labour subject to conditi ,tls mentioied therein ar-rd subsequent instruction issued thr:; r on (b) While so, since there were o successful candidates in the interview held and since thr:'- lailcd to oblige the conditions laid down therein, results of tl'L,r intervie'"r, were declarecl as -NIL- and the same was publishe: in the Telugu Newspaper Vartha, dated 13.01.2003. While s r, the Hon'bie High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its order, clz, :d 28. \('t.2OO4 in WP.No.5158 of 2003 & W.P.No.5746 and b rlch, set aside the abovc NIL results and directed to re ver fy the ser-vice certihcates produced by the petitioner. Accorrl ngly, in te rms of the above orders of the Hon'ble High C,r rrt of Andhra Pradesh. the matter in respect of the petit:ct er herein has been re',,ielved and since the petrtioner had no tdhered to the conditions mentioned in B.P(P&G-Per) Ms No.36, dated

18.05.1997 for appointment, he could not be s :lected for the post of LDC. 6 (c) The petitioner herein was already interviewed as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No. 14167 of 2O00 and could not be selected in view of the Hon'ble High Court directions in its Judgment dated

18.11.1999.in W.P.No.5064 and batch that the respondent need not consider the cases of such or those candidates who were already appeared for the interview and were not considered. As such, the petitioner's case was not considered for selection. AccordinglJ/, necessary speaking orders were issued to him by this olfice proceedings Lr.No CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS IIIPo-Iv 1497 /04, dated 3r.12,2oo4 communicating the reason for this non-selection to the post of LDC (d) Aggrieved by the rejection orders of his selection, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Hlgh Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking direction to the respondents to declare the speaking orders issued to him by this office, dated 31.12.2OO4 as illegal. While so, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its order 11.07.2005 in W.P.No.5954 of 2005 directed to follow the observations made in WP.No.S158 of 2OO3, dated 28.IO.2OO4 and pass appropriate orders. In view of the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the matter 1 had been reviewed and since the petitioner's : rte of working in the contractor's establishment was not :;tablished, he could not be selected. Accordingly, speak.i I 1 orders were rssued b1' this office vide procee,l I g No. Lr No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S) /AS II / Po-Iv / 2o2 I 05, 10 09.2005 (e) The service certificate produced b',' the petitioner u,as not rn accordance with the mandated guidt lines issued ir-t B.P(P&G Per)Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 read with instructions issued thereon vide Secy/DGM(IR)/AS-IR/PO tI/ Arl t77o199, datr I 03.12.t999 \ emo. Adcll n,hich are the pre-conditions for providing emp[ 5rmgn1 to him As such, his case lor the post of LDC rvas reit r ted. Thus, the petitioner had failed to prove the genuinenes; of the ser-vice certificate produced by him. Thus, the actio r taken by the respondents in here in rejecting this cit:ir is justified AccordingLy, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitior FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

6. A perusai of the impugned Order, da-, cl 10.09.2005 shows that the respondent authorities have rr: :cted the case of the petitioner by observing as follows: l i I I (a) The seruice ceftiJlcate produced by the petitioner has been examined and it is obserued that neither the seruice ceftifrcate bears ang date of ssue nor the Signcttoies on certifLcate put antt date. ThereJbre, it could not be estabLislrcd tuhether the ceftificcLte Lssued was genuine as date c.tJ the cerlificate is an important ele me nt . (b) Further in the certificate there tuere adclitions made subsequentlg without anA endorsement and therefore it could not be estctblished whether the additions were proper ancl added by the competent person. (c) The signature of the person tulto issued th.e ceftificate is different in case of certiftccttes submitted bg other incumbents artd therebg leading to the apprehension tuhether the signature is correct. (d) lt was not clear from the seruice certiftcate LL)fLether the agreements quoted tuere of K2 or LS or othertuise. Therefore, it could nol be established tulrctlrcr the inanmbent u)as on the rolLs as on 1 B-05- 1 997 cts if the agreements tLtere of shofter durcLtion and/ or lesser uolue petitioner/ the contracto r maA not haue executed he utorks as on 18-O5-1997. (e) The contractor could not produce ang records despite specifi.c request in order to establish the genuineness of the certificate and qlso to uerifg tf the petitioner worked as on 18-O5-1997. It tucLs hotueuer, confessed bg the contractor that the petitioner Loorked uith him about l5 to 20 dags and not throughout the month and therefore it could not be concluded tuhether the petitioner uJas on the rolls as on 9 18 05- 1997 uhich is an essential conditior to be full flled if contract labour tuere to be cort:;; lered for appointment as per judgment of the Supretit. Court i' SLP(C) No. 19402/2002 AP Transco Vs. t) 'l'iuik.rrt.n'- and others. (fl The departmental offtcials tuhp put tlrc '; g thc scruic, ( e fliJlcatc stalcd that hc onlg cerril attt'sted the agreement and tuork carried : contractor lqtt he did not knout candidates r t ueify the records a.botLt the a.ttendance pefta!., tatllre oF. -ated ond r.t bq the d did not Utg to th<' candidates. As per r<:ft're nce 1'1' cited aboue, the d,t 1 o.fficials is requtred to ceftify dulg ue'it. reference to Agre:emertt under ultich the cantract lctLtotLr is ert.gcr.ged [.e., pior to 18-O:, confinninq that the check-mectsurement is c.l 1997. ln uietu oJ the statement bg the cLtl of|lcial that he onlg attested the agreerneri caried out, tt lacks the requisite certiil'.r tlrcrefore it could not be established that ct: 1997 the petitioner tuo s on tle rolls of the cor,t t ftmental. itlg LDith cctrlicular 1997 anC. er 18-05 aftmental. utcL Luork: tion. and. tn 1B-05- actor.

7. The principal observation of the au:lI ,rities is that neither the ser-vice certificate bears any date ,r issue nor the Signatories thereon affi-xed any date. It is f,r 'ther observed that certain additions appear to have beerr made in the certiflcate subsequently, without any proper er( orsement. The Contractor admitted that the petitioner had wor <ed under him only for about 15 to 20 days and not througl r L1t the month- 10 Hence, it could not be conclusively established that the petitioner was on the rolls as on 18.05.1997. B. Furthermore, the departmental officrais are required to certily the e ngagement of contract labour only after duly verifying the records with reference to Agreement under which such labour was engaged, to ensure that existed prior to

18.05.1997. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies and lack of reliable material, the respondent authorities have rejected the petitioner's claim

9. To fortify their contention, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.6498 of 20OB wherein similar set of facts were brought before the Court by the petitioners therein and the same lr,as dismissed by observing as follows: "It is onlg the contract Labour, that haue been engaged at a particu.lar point of time, that utere entitled to be regularized, in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36. On an earlier occasion, the cases of the petitioners rrere rejected, on the ground that they failed to proue the fact that theg haue been engaged bg labour contractor. When theg approached this court, o specific direction was issued to the petitioners, as well as to the respondents, as regords the ueificotton of record. On their part, the respondents got a uigilance enquiry conducted. The contractor, uho issued the certificates, did not produce 1,1, anA record, ctnd categoically stated that 't maintctin the same. An offcial, utho endor; cerliftcates, refused to appeQr in the enqu r poi.nt of tinte, he deposed that he no doubt e't thc ceftiftcates, but dtd not uenfA cLnA recotc Atte ndanca Re gister, Acquittance Register, e't : bock ground, the p:s7i1irr.,'s carlnot be sal pntued tlteir- cases that tltc11 haue been e r controc.t labour, on an ectrl[er occasion. U n circumstortces, this court is not irtclined to irtir z did not d on tlrc 1. At one Lorsed on. su.ch as With this to hctue laged as {er thesct .fere witl't the impug ned order." Aggrieved by the above order, the peti.roners therein preferred an appeal by t11ing Writ Appeal ll ,.958 of 20O8 before tl-ris Court and the samc r,vas dismissc . by observing that the petitiott involves disputed questior.r of fact, and therefore, thc learned Single Judge has righl y rejected the petition

10. The contention of the learned counsel fr,r the petrtioner that the grounds mentioned in the reject :n order are unsustainable. This argument of the learne<l , ounsel lor the petitioner cannot be accepted as while rejectir g the claim of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have t lken "A" to "F" grounds, and the same cannot be denied. Out rf them, one of ., the grounds was that the foundational docun :nt i.e. service certificate suffers from material lacunat and lacks authentrcity; it cannot be accorded any evider ,iary- value for 12 consideration. Furthermore, despite specilic directions, the Contractor lailed to produce any contemporaneous records to substantiatc the qenuincness of the saicl certificatc or to cstablish ilLirt thc irclitioner lvas actuall_v eng:reed on thc rolls :rs on 18.0r. 1997. irr vierv of the lorcgoing ciL-cumstances. tlris Cbri r-t is ol tirr: <-'onsiriererl view that the Writ Petrttotr is devoicl ol rnerits :r Lrcl the sanrc is liable to be dismissed. 1l Acc:orrlinglv. rhc Writ Petition is disinissecl. l'frerc -shaI ire no ordcr:rs fo ciosts- MisL:cll:errcor,rs pctitions, if any, pencling in this \\-r'it Petition, shall stancL closed /iTRUE COPYil SD/-L.VIJAYA LAKSHMI SISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER .1 . One CC to SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY, Advoca 2. One CC to SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKER, SC FO 3. Two CD Copies U P L [OPUC] To I'SK,,'BSK r.aJf-, ---- HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 ORDER WP.No.27998 of 2007 \j stu\ 1 IT UA o O I ttB .? 2[26 _". ,i- t ) :c q-'" '-'-. . '" . .: -.:' ' - a DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {,.