C.Jaya Singh v. Northem Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMA.VARAPU RT"IESHWAR RAO WRIT PBTITION No.2O8O3 OF 2OO8 ORDER: I This Writ Petition is frled seeking the following relief: "...to declare tlrc action of tte respondents in rejecting petitioner's case for being appointed as LDC as illegal and arbitrary and set-a-side the letter No.CGM(HRD)/GM(IR&L)/AS-A/PO-H-?/wP No. 6283 of 20O5-O8 dt.18.02.20o8 issued bg the 2"d respondent. Conseqtentlg, dired the respondents to appoint the petitioner as LDC, dulg grartttg all other consequential benefits on par utith hi.s colleagues, utho uere seleded and appointed in term-s of notification dt. 2 4. O4.2 0O 1."

2. Heard 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 available on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) The petitioner worked as a contract labour in the offict: of the 3.d respondent from O1.O5.1996 to 3 I .08. 1998. 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 50yo posts ol initial recruitment cadre should be filled in considering the 2 Ex-Casual labour, Contract Labour and VEWs. The 3.d respondent issued Notification, dated 24.04.2001, 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 qualilied and eligible for being appointed as LDC, he had submitted an application along with all the certificates including the service certificate issued by the contractor and counter signed by the departmental official. (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 nalne 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 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 certiflcate produced by the petitioner, is correct and genuine. After the said report, the respondents issued a Notihcation published in the Vaartha Telugu daily, dated

13.01.2OO3, holding that there were no successful candidates and the result of interview held as "NIL". (c) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner llled W.P. ') tJ No.619O of 2O03. The said Writ Petition was adjudicated along with the batch of Writ Petitions i.e. W.P. No.5158 of 2003, dated 28.10.2004. While adjudicating the above batch of Writ Petitions, this Court categorically observed as follows: "lt is for tlrc respondent board to verifg the ertificates produced bg tle petitioners with referene to tle agreements autarded to the contractor, which uere ueified and counter signed bg he official respondents. Therefore, the action of the respondents in simply rejecting thr2 cases of the petitioners based on tle Vigilance Inspector's report on the ground tlat tle contract has not produced the aforesaid registers is unreasonable and unsustainable. Awrdtqly, the respondents are directed to uerifg tle ertificates rcsued by the cotttractor and counter signed by tle officiak of the respondents with reference to tte agreem.ents under tulrich particular contract labours are engoged as on 18.05.1997 and consid.er their uses for appointment in accnrdartce uith BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.O5.1997". (d) Despite such clear and categorical direction given by this Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated O8.O 1 .2OO5 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for being appointed as LDC on the ground that: Petitioner claims to have worked from 01.05.1996 to 3 1 . 08. 1 998 under LS agreements No.4 / 97 -98, 49 / 97 -98. The above agreements ,'/ 4 1l The above agreements were commenced from 31.05. 1997 i.e., after 18.05.1997, as such, petitioner's case was rejected. (e) The reason shown by the respondents for rejecting petitioner's case vide letter, dated 08.01.2005 are not only incorrect, but also contrary to the record and judgment rendered by this Court in WP No.5158 of 20O3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again filed W.P.No.6283 of 2005, challenging the letter, dated 08.01.20O5. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated 03.01.2007 disposed of the writ petition, giving liberty to produce all the relevart material before the 2"d respondent. (0 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

18.05.1997. However, vrithout considering thc submissions made by the petitioner, in gross violation of the earlier orders passed by the court in WP No. 5746 of 2O03, the 2.a respondent issued Memo, dated 18.O2.2OO8. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the order, dated 18.O2.2008 issued by the f"a respondent. -\ 5

4. [,earned 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 cerLiflcate produced by the petitioner clearly establishes that he worked as Contract Labour from 01.05.1996 to 31.O8. 1998 and the said certificate was even counter signed by the departrnental officials. As such, he is a contract labour as on the cut of date i.e.

18.05.1997, therefore, by showing those untenable reasons, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his appointment. Accordingll,, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

5. karned counsel for the respondents filed counter and submits as lollovys (a) That in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 orders rvere issued for filling up of 5O% of the vacant posts LDCs/Typist/JPOs existing as on that day, by the Ex-Casual t abour/VEWs and contract labour subject to fulfilling conditions mentioned therein. Accordingly, employment Notilrcation u'as issucd on 28.O4.2OO I inviting the applications from the desired candidates. While so, petitioner applied for the post of LDC/Typist and as he had failed to oblige the conditions therern, he could not be selected. 5 (b) The inclusion of the petitioner's name in the notification, dated 3O-11-2OO2 callurrg him for the interview, would not confer on him any right to claim for appointment since he failed to fulfill the conditions in B.P. (P&G) Ms. No. 36, dt. 18-05-f997. Since no successful candidates were available in the interview, NIL results were noffied in the daily Newspaper. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to declare ttre said results as illegal. In pursuance of the above, the Honble High Court of A.P. by its common order, dated 28. 10.2004 in W.P.No.6190 of 2OO3 and W.P.No. 5158 of 2OO3 batch set aside the above NIL results and directed tJre respondents to consider the case of the case of tJ.e petitioner in the light of the observation made in B.P. (P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. (c) [n pursuance of the above, duly complying with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. since the petitioner is not qualihed, vide ttris office Proc. Lr. No. CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-II/524 /04, dated O8.01.2o05 speaking orders u'ere issued to tl.e petitioner indicating the reasons for his non-selection to the post. Aggrieved by the said rejection orders, dated 08.O1.20O5, the individual Iiled a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. seeking the direction to the respondents to quash tlE Baid speaking orders- 7 ri) (d) In pursuance of the above, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. by its common order dated O3.OI.2OO7 inter alia in W.P.No.6283 of 2O05 and batch passed common orders as follows:

1. The petitioners are at liberty to produce all the relevant material before the Chief General Manager of the respondent organization on or before 24.O2.2OO7 to substantiate their claim.

2. On receiving such material, the Chief General Manager is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in the light of the material to be produced by the petitioners and the record available with them and pass a speaking order as expeditiously as possible. (e) In pursuance of the orders Hon'ble High Court of A.P., dated 03.01.2OO7 in W.P.No.7O38 of 2005, vide Procs. No. CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS IIlPO,w 24l07, dated 02.05.2OO7, the Superintending Engineer/ Operation/ DPE/ NPDC Ltd., was appointed as an Enquiry Ofhcer to enquire into material produced by the petitioner for considering his case for the post of LDC. While so, the Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry, has submitted the findings of the enquiry report, wherein he held that the service certilicate produced by the petitioner is nol genuine. */ 1 8 \ (f) The respondent authorities after a detailed examination of the report, decisively accepting with ttre hndings of the Enquiry Oflicer, rejected the case of the petitioner for the post of LDC. Accordingly, vide proceedings, dated 18.02.2OO8, the petitioner was communicated the reasons for rejecting of his case for the post of LDC. Thus, the common orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., dated

03.01.2OO7 in W.P.No.6283 of 2OO5 filed by the petitioner have been scrupulously obeyed. The petitioner terming the action of the respondent AS contempt of the court orders, dated

03.01.20O7 in W.P.No.6283 of 2005, liled C.C. No.1O9 of 2008 and the sarrre \\'as also as dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of A. P, by its order, dated 0 1 .05.2008. (S) Since the petitioner failed to substantiate his date of engagement as on 18.05.1997 on the rolls of contractors establishment in terms of B.P. (P&G) Ms.No.36, dated

18.05. 1997, l-ris case could not be considered for the post of LDC. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

6. A perusal of the impugned Order, dated 18.02.2008 shows that the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner b-r' observing as follows: / I 9 During the enEtiry, the contractor deposed that he tns not maintained ang registers. The petitioner Si C. Jaga Singh also ad.mitted tlnt lE did not sign in tle muster roll or u)age register. Their aboue uersion makes it clear tlnt tle mandatory norm of tle petitioner's eistence on the rolls of establishment as on 18-O5-1997 hos rat gained a@eptancz. As such the unauailableness of reords utith the antractor has lost its essen<r for acceptabilitg of the seruie cerlifcate as to its genuineness. Tle aboue failure on the part of the petitioner has been further strengthened uith tle reuelation of tle fact bg Sn. Jaganmohan Shastn, the then ADE citing that the petitioner is unscrupulous and of his signing is unfinable onlg to tle extent of the contractor's performanre of works duing his tenure. Flom the aboue, it is euident that the seruicc certificate produced by the petitioner Sri C. Jaga Singh is found not genuine. 7 . The main observation of the authorities is that the contractor deposed that hc had not maintained any registers. The petitioner also admitted that he did not sign in the muster roll or wage register. Their above version makes it clear that the mandatory norm ol the petitioner's e.xistence on the rolls of establishment as on 18-05- 1997 has not gained acceptance. Moreover, Sri. Jaganmohan Shastri, the then ADE cited the petitioner is dishonest, ar-rd his signature is confined only to the extent of the contractor's performance of works during his 10 tenure. In view of the above lacunae, the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner. o

8. To fortify their contention, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment rendered by tl.is Court in W.P.No.649B of 2008 wherein similar set of facts were brought before the Court by the petitioners therein and the sarne was dismissed by observing as follows: "lt is onlg the cottract labour, tlnt hnue been engaged at a particular point of time, tLnt uere entrtle.d to be regularized, in tenns of B.P.Ms.No.36. On an eorlier occasion, the cdses of the petitiorers uare rejected, on the ground that they failed to proue the fad ttnt tteg haue been engaged bg labour contractor, Wlen tleg approached this court. a speciftc direction uas issued to ttrc petitioners, cts uell as to the respondents, o"s regards the ueificatiort of record. On tlrcir part, tLe respondents got a uigilarrce errluiry conducted. The antractor, uho issued the certiJicates, did not produce anq re@rd, and categoically stated thot he did not maintain tte same. An offtcial, uho endorsed on tle ertificates, refused to appear it tlte enquiry. At one point of time, le deposed that he no doubt endorsed on the certifiutes, but did not ueify anlj recortl. such os Attendane Register, Acquittance Register. etc. With this bock ground, tlrc Wtitiotlers cannot lrc said to houe proued tlrctr cases that theg haue been engaged as contract labour, on an earlier occasion. Llnder llrcse ciratmstances, this aufi is not incline-d to intetfc,re unth the impugned order-" / 11 Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners therein preferred arr appeal by filing Writ Appeal No.958 of 2OO8 before this Court and the sarne was dismissed by observing that the petition involves 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 stated in the rejection order are not sustainable in rejecting the case of the petitioner. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as once the preliminary document i.e. service certificate has lacunae, it cannot be taken into consideration. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There sha-Il be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. S ALLIKARJ UNA RAO STANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER I To, One CC to SRI K'VASUDEVA REDDY' Advocate One CC to SRI A CHANDRA SHAKER' SC FOR Two CD CoPies I 2 3 IUC NP DCL [OPUCI BSR PVL \c5- HIGH COURT DATED: 1211112025 1Hf- STAI i..;,. ,..\. /,-i. '. .J 2 { lA[ zut t SPi:. rC\ ; -L. * ORDER WP.No.20803 of 2008 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS a*fd \+ 61["\t