1. M. Bhaskar, S/o RamaswamyAge 33 Gaste, BC -D Occ LabourAgriculture, Chikkepally (v), Papgal v. Ragavendar Rao, S/o Sujee:-- Rag Age 35 Caste OC, Occ Agriculture $ingavaram

6. Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited, (APSPDCL), Rep. by its Qhairman qnri Managing Diiect6r D. No.19-13-65/A, Sririivasapuram. Jiruch3noor Rcad Tirupati - 517 503, Chittoor District

7. Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited. (APEPDCL). Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director P and T Colony. Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam - 530 020

8. Transmission Corooration of AP Limited (AP Transco), Rep by its Chairman and Managing Diiqctor Transc6 Nilayam, 2nd Floor, 1st Building Gunadala, V,ijayaWadd -F20 008, Krishna Districi. 9 Andhra Pradesh Pqwer Qeneration Corporation Limited, (AP Qenco),]lep by itE Chairman and lldgnaging girector Trdnscq Nilayam, 2nd Flpor, 1st Building Sunqdala, VijgyawqQa -'520 008, Krishna District. . ...BESPONDENIS Eetitiqn under Artiqle 2?6 of the qonstitutign qf lndia prayiog thEt i4 t[9 circumstanae-s stated i0 the affidayil filed therewith, the High Court may pq pleased to isque a writ, order pr dirPction more perticUlerly sne in thP nqlure pf. a writ of manEamuq deqlaring the action of thg reFpondQnts herei0 in nal appointing the petitionerq ,t e9ntr49t JunioJ linelrlen on pat with I!9 ottrer'! 12F can{idates already appqinted as .jurlior linemen, qs illegal ?!d arb!1rary violatlve of Article 14 9f the Ponstitution of lndia and Qon$equently direct the resppndentE lo qoniider and appoint the petitigners as gontr4pt linqmen in accqrdance with orders rnadp in W,A No { {34 qf 2QQ0 and bale h forthwith NQ: 1 017 N :4476 F 1 Petitig! under SeQlion 151 CPQ praylng th3t in the aircumstances stated in the effidayit filed in support of the petitian, the High Cou( may [9 plgased to direct the {gspondents to cQnsider the rBpresentatign of the petitioners, dt. 24-07-2917 for appQintrDqnt aQ conlract junior lingmen counsel for the Petitione;s: SRI Pll9lt!{!_E_DP! { couNSEI., REP. FoR sRt MoHq BASEER RIYAZ Counsel for tfre Respondent No.1: gP FOR SERVICES.! Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI ZAKIR ALI DANISH, SC FOR TGNPDCL The Court made thq following: OROER I THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.36O23 of 2Ot7 ORDER: The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondent- authorities in not appointing them as contract Junior Linemen on par with the other 1 125 candidates a-lready appointed AS Junior Linemen. Consequently pelitioners seek a direction to the respondents t,o consider their applications and appoint them as contract Junior Linemen, in accordance with the orders made in W.A.No.1434 o{ 2OOB

2. Heard Sri B.Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the I petitioners

3. At the hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submil that the subject matter in this writ petition 1S squarely covered by the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.16987 of 2Ol9 ald batch, therefore, the same order may be passed ln this writ petition ;rs well. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "ln uieut of tlrc submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing fo, respondent Corporation, uith tlrc consent of both the parties, uithout going into merits, the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing petitioners to indiuidual submit 2 representations settirlg out their eligibilitg in terms of the eligibilitg citeia in the Notification dated 20.10.2006 and in tenns of tle judgment dated 10.11.2009 in Wit Appeal No.1434 of 2OO8 and batch, judgment dated 17.11.2009 in Writ Appeal No.1523 of 20OB and batch and order dated 25.02.2019 in SLP No.15OO1-1511O of 2013 and batch. Th.e same slnll be considered bg the Corporations and appropriate orders be passed utithin a peiod of four uLeeks from tlrc date of receipt of a copg of this order.'

4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 14.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.16987 of 2Ol9 and batch. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand ciosed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/-T . TIRUMALA DEVI P UTY REGISTRAR S NOF FICER To, 1

2. The Pflncipal Secretary' EnergY Tffilt,iil"isl'-wselr ,,?Jf,i'3:,,'ff 'lfli,,:3S:'*iJ:[B:1"1"?iI Department, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Directqr, Vidyut Tplanoana State Power Generation dffii,%1rir-,r6#d' HYderabad - 5oo 4 ( 6 o! AP

8. o 10 11. 12. 13. 14 '15 lAloog !yi!h the copy qf order dated 14.02'2025, in W'P'No 1EQE7 cf 20'!9 q batch) BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 \ ORDER WP.No.36023 ot 2017 1HE.i14 r.c eo( o 16 APF ilE Op Sn4-T 6;uI ({.(' -9 \ t) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ,ry 1z g,/// vt?'=zoz=lzof4 _ g..d.r* u f"& z"lzl.(- c HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 16987. 1 6991.204 4.20588. 20629. 22A29- 23035 of2O19.2l0l7 ar.d23947 of2O2O 2461 3492 2260A,24037 AND 25244 0F 202L 9 COMMON ORDER: The relief sought in all these Writ Petitions being the same i.e. to declare the action of the respondent - Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Limited in not appointing petitioners as Junior Linemen pursuant to the notilication dated O6.06.2OO6 arrd 08.06.2006 and the Revised Notification dated 20.1O.2OO6, in terms of the undertaking recorded in the order dated 10. 1 1.2O 1 1 in Writ Appeal No. 1434 of 2008 and batch which was reiterated in the order dated

25.O2.2OL9 in SLP (C) No. 150O1-15110 of 2O13 by considering the legal notice dated 2O.O4.2O19, they are a-ll heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. Government accorded permission to AP TRANSCO and four DISCOMs in the combined State of Andhra Fradesh to recruit 7114 posts of Junior Linemen. Out of them, 1434 posts fell to the share of TSNPDCL and 2443 posts fell to the share of TSSPDCL. TSNPDCL issued a notification dated O6.O6.2OO6 and O8.O6.2006 for recruitment of 1434 Junior Linemen and criteria for selection was covered under Clause 7(b) thereof. Similar notification was issued by TSSPDCL. TSNPDCL issued a revised notification dated 20.i0.2O06 for recruitment of 1434 I I 1 I Junior Linemen where criteria for selection was covered under Clause 6. Clause 6 I(iv) provided the martner in which preference would be given among presently serving contract labour and fresh candidates, as extracted below: lq\ t'' "(iv) If conditions (il, (ii) and (iii| above are fulfilled' preferelrce will be iven to exPerience as noted below' PresentlY servi4g contract labour who are working now for of Ttan""o/ DIscoMs with.recorded evidence -^.ni#.i ii.."grr' i"t-",.rlons Log Books io be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer ""u'-"Ltiott"" OR PresentJy servirrg contract labour for any other. works in t u.,""o/oiicdrrs with- recorded evidence of EPF number in his name to be certified by the concerned DE If contract labour and fresh candidates apply for the Post' the '-' .ontr.cl labour will be given preference for selection' t'' lf more than one contract Labour apply for the post' the .o.rrr."i rJIr', ,,.iir, .*ti". a"t" of birth will be given preference for selection. ,n, ii i.t *" onlv kesh candidate s who appUed for the Post -the *' .uiJ..a i" iil7 qualiSing examination vrill be the criteria for selection." It is further stated that all the 7114 posts noti{ied in TRANSCO and DISCOMS were filled-up based on the above criteria with contract labour based on age' Writ Petition No' 19051 of 2OO7 and batch was filed by contract labour and freshers, challenging clause 6 I (i9 (c)' The said Writ Petitions were allowed on 02.05'20O8 setting aside the said clause since it gave preference to older aged contract labour irrespective of their length of service or their qualiEcations or the marks in the qualirying examination. The Corporations f ed Writ Appeal No' 1434 of 2008 and batch chaltenging the above said order' In 3 view of the fact that all the 71 14 posts were filled up and on the basis of learned Advocate General's submission that all the Corporations are ready to absorb and select petitioners in the batch of writ petitions who were affected due to clause I 6(iv)(c), this Court disposed of the Writ Appeals vide order dated I O. I I.2009, with the following directions: ' Therefore, taking the aforesaid undertakings of the Appellant-Distribution Companies on record, we direct the APpeuant- Companies to appoint al1 the Respondents/writ Petitioners, who submitted their applications pursuant to the notiJications dated a.6.2OO6 arld the other dates, issued by the various appellant compalies, arrd who have passed the pole climbing test and fulfilled the other eligibility criterion for appointment as Junior Linemen, without reference to and without insisting upon the fulfilment of Condition No. 6(iv)(c) of the revised notiflcation dated 20.10.2006 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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 pursuance of the aforesaid notifications, subject to passing of the pole climbing test and fulfilment of eligibility criteria We also make it clear that a-ll the selected and appointed respondents-Writ Petitioners a.rld others similarly situated would be entitled for al1 benefits on par with the persons who have been appointed as Junior Linemen as per condition No. 6(ivxc) of the revised notification, including regularisation of their services as per rules and policy." Writ Appeal No. 1523 of 2OO8 and batch of cases pertaining to fresh caldidates was also disposed of by order dated 17.11.2009 in terms of the directions issued in Writ Appeal No. 1434 of 2OO8, as under: ' It is represented by both the learned counsel that the issue involved in these cases is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by i 4 this Court on 10. 1 1.2009 irr WA No. L434 of 2OO8 arrd batch. However, learned starding counsel for Andhra Pradesh Central power Distribution Company Limited (APCPDCL) contends that the cases of the aggrieved fresh candidates herein can be considered only after exhausting the eisting con :act labour as per clauses 6 (iv)(b) & (d) of the revised notification dated 20. 10.20O6. Recording the above submission, we are of the opinion tllat it would suffice, if a direction is issued to ApCpDCL to consider the cases of the candidates in question as per Clauses 6 (iv) (b) & (d) of the revised notification dated 20.1O.2006, of they are otherwise eligible Therefore, following the judgment rendered by us in WA. No. 1434 of 2008 and batch on 10.11.2009 and with the above direction, thcse cascs i.e. W,A.No. 1523 of 2008 and W.p. No.s 14384 arr,d 16292 of 2OO8 are disposed of No order as to costs"- In view of the above directions, vacancies arising in the DISCOMs after notification dated 2O-lO -2006 were.required to be filled up with writ petitioners in the above cases and similarly-situated candidates (including fresh candidates) who applied pursuant to 2006 Notilication. Thereafter, Writ Petitions No. 6981 of 2OlO and batch was filed seeking a direction to tJle DISCOMs not to fill-up the posts arising after Notification dated 2O. t O.2006 without issuing a fresh notification. An interim order directing respondents not to fiIl the vacancies was passed by this Court which was stayed in Writ Appeal No. 693 of 2011 ancl batch. Governmenl accorded permission to frll up 7319 posts of Junior Linemen in order to comply with the directions in Writ Appeal No. 1434 of 2OO8 and batch arrd Writ Appeal No. 1523 of 2009 and batch. Out of which, 1111 posts pertain to TSNpDCL. 5 Permission was also accorded to frll up notified vacancies which were unf led due to non-availability of eligible contract labour with fresh candidates as per marks merit. Several fresh candidates were appointed pursuant to the above permission. In TSNPDCL, out of a tota.l of 1 1 1 1 posts permitted by the Government, 168 posts were filled with existing contract labour a-nd 831 posts were filled with fresh candidates. Therefore, after filling up 999 posts in TSNPDCL, there are still 112 vacant posts left which were accorded permission by the Government to be frlled. Similarly, in TSSPDCL, a total of 5O9 vacancies were left. The services of those individuals who were absorbed (both existing contract labour and fresh candidates) were regularised in due course. Writ Petition No. 6981 of 2O1O and batch and Writ Appeals No. 693 of 2011 artd batch were clubbed together and disposed of by order dated 14.03.2012 setting aside the selection of candidates to the subsequently notified 7319 vacancies and directed those vacancies to be filled up taking up fresh recruitment. In SLP No. 150O1-1511O of 2O13 and SLP No. 75114-15220 of 2013, the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 693 of 2O1l and batch was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, SLP No. 15OO1-1511O of 2013 and batch of cases, including contempt cases, were disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court setting aside the judgment dated I 6

14.03.2012 in Writ Appeal No. 693 of 2011 and batch. Further, the undertaking of learned Senior Counsel appearing for DISCOMs that persons who applied for seleetion in 2OO6 and who were not yet appointed because of clause 6I (iv)(c) shall be I considered for appointment. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below: "t0. The said judgment of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.1434 of 2008 and Batch was referred to in the impugned judgmcnt. However, the High Court proceeded to adjudicate the correctness of the selections made pursuant to the notification dated 08.06.2006120.10.2O06. The judgrnent of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1434 of 2008 and Batch became final and aPpointments were made pursuant to the directions issued. The High Court committed a serious error in re-examining the selections to 7114 posts of Junior l,inemen and other appointmcnts made beyond the posts that were advertised, made pur:;uant to the advertisement dated 08.06.2006/ 20. I 0.2006. Therefore, the declarations and directions which have a bearing on the selections rlnd appointments that are already made a-re not sustainable, ll. Ms. Prerna Silgh, learned counsel appearing for the persons who are sirnilarly situated to those who were di.ected to be appointed by the Division B(:nch in Writ Appeal No.l434 of 2008 and Batch submitted that some of the eligibte cardidates have not been appointed till date. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the DISCOMS lairly submitted that if persons who applied for selection as Junior Lincman in 2006 were not appointed due to condition 6(iv) O of the revised notification dated 2O.10.2O06, they shall be considered for appointment. i2. Keeping in mild that appointm€nts to the posts of Junior Linemen have been made long back and the services of those appointed were regr.rlarised. any interference with such appointments will cause irreparable loss to tham apart from adversely affecting the smooth tunctioning of the A.P. TRANSCO and the DISCOMS. 13. Needless to say that, arly future recruitment to the post of Junior Lineman shall be done strictly in accordance with the law.' '/

3. This being the factual scenario, petitioners, being fresh candidates, who applied pursuant to the notiflcations issued in 2OO6 and had passed the pole climbing test and were fully eligible, made representations through their Advocate to appoint them to the post of Junior Linemen in'accordance with the undertakings given by the respondents before Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the said representations were not considered, these Writ Petitions are filed.

4. lrarned Senior Counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Anusha and Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar submits that in view of the undertaking given before this Court in the above Writ Appeals, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special l.eave Petitions, supra, respondents are bound to absorb fresh candidates who had applied in 2006 and qualilied the pole climbing test, in terms of Clause 6I[iv)(d), after exhausting existing contract labour. As per respondent's own allidavit/report before the Honble Supreme Court, after existing contract labour were absorbed pursuant of the undertakings, fresh candidates were appointed to fiI1 the vacancies, however, there were still some vacancies left. For the reasons best known to them, petitioners, who were similarly-placed individuals as the appointed fresh candidates were not absorbed despite the availability of vacancies. It is I I l 8 argued that the contention in the counter that if petitioners were existing contract labour, then alone they are eligible for the benefit of the undertakings is untenable for in' Writ Appeal No. 1434 of 2008 and batch, no such distinction was made; in Writ Appea-l No. 1523 of 20O8 and batch, when the specific issue pertaining to absorbing fresh candidates was under consideration, this Court followed the order in Writ Appeal No. 1434 of 2008 and batch. According to learned Senior Counsel, the conduct of respondents, as set out in their own alhdavit and report before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, makes it evident that the benefit was extended to fresh candidates who applied in 2OO6, after exhausting existing contract labour. Again, in SLP 15001-15110 of 2013 and batch, the undertaking was not restricted on$ to existing contract labour. Learned Senior Counsel a.lso contends that the contention in the counter that petitioners' marks in the qualiffing exam (ITI) were below the score of the last caldidate, who was selected, is untenable because when vacancies are still left, question of comparing the marks of the last candidate who was selected does not arise. Till the vacancies are lilled, the fresh candidates in the descending order of marks will be eligible to be appointed and further, as demonstrated in para 6 of the reply affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 2O494 of 2O19, 9 persons with lesser marks than petitioners have also been absorbed. It is argued that the contention in the counter that there are no vacancies of Junior Linemen available pursuant to the notification of 20O6 is untenable. Vacaniies created after 20O6 were permitted by the Government to be frlled up by the DISCOMs with candidates who applied for the notifrcation of 2006 in order to honour the undertaking given to this Court. As admitted in the aJlidavit/report filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 112 vacancies earmarked for that purpose in TSNPDCL are available to be filled. Sirnilarly 5O9 vacancies in TSSPDCL are available to be filled. In some cases, it is contended by the respondents that some petitioners did not qualiff . the pole climbing test, however, there is no record to that effect. All the Petitioners qualified in the pole climbing test.

5. Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel for respondents submits that respondent - Corporation issued notification No. 6 of 20O6 inviting applications for the post of Junior Linemen; thereafter a revised notification dated

20.lO.2006 was issued notirying 7114 Junior Linemen posts in four distribution companies in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh which includes the posts notified in circular district unit in the respondent company also. It is submitted that Writ I t0 Petitions No. 1905 1 of 2OO8 artd batch were Iiled challenging the notification and during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, all the vacancies notified by the respondent Company have been filed up. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge by order dated

02.05.2008 set-aside the selection and directed the distribution companies to prescribe the tenure of contract appointment of the candidate who were appointed pursuant to the notification in 2006. Aggrieved by the said order, Writ Appeal No. 1434 of 2008 and batch was frled. Before the Division Bench, the learned Advocate Genera,l appearing for the Distribution Company expressed that setting aside of the selection and appointment of Junior Linemen would adversely allect the power supply distribution, therefore, gave an undertaling for accommodating the candJdates, who are affected in the irnplementation of clause 6 I(ivf (c) of the revised notification. As per the said clause, if more than one contract labour is eligible for selection, the candidate with higher age will be selected. The said clause affected certain contract employees' selection to the post. The Division Bench accepting the undertaking, disposed of the Writ Appeals setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed to consider petitioners arrd others who are affected by Clause 6I (iv)(c). Accordingly, eligible candidates affected bv Clause 6I (iv)(c| were considered and issued appointment orders over and above 7114 posts notilied. 11 According to learned Senior Counsel, selection under notification of 2006 was again considered by another Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 8794 of 2OO7 and batch. The said batch of cases was finally decided by a common order dated t4-03.2012 directing to review the entire Selection process pursuant to the notification issued in 20O6. It is submitted that, a batch of Contempt Cases was frled for not complying with the order dated 14.03.2012. In the implementation of the said order, certain selected and appointed candidates were found to be ineligible. The said candidates approached the Honlrle Supreme Court by filing SLP (c) No.150O1-15110/2023' wherein initially, stay of implementation of order was granted' Subsequently, by order dated' 25.O2 2019, the Hon'ble. Supreme Court set aside the order dated 14.03.2012 in Writ Petition No. 8794 oI 2OO7 and batch and upheld the order dated 10 11.2O09 in Writ Appeal No. 7434 of 2008 and batch. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also recorded that DISCOMs should abide by the undertaking given before the Division Bench to accommodate the candidates, who were allected by Clause-6 I(iv)(c) of the revised notification. karned Senior Counsel further argued that in terms of the order, only the candidates, who were alfected in selection in terms of Clause 6 t(ivXc) are entitled to be considered for appointments, subject to fi:lfilling other t2 conditions of the Notification. Petitioners in this batch of Writ Petitions have not asserted that they were not selected only on the basis of Clause 6l(iv)(c). Further, they have not made any individual representations together with documents submitted along with the Application forms in terms of the notification issued and in the absence of the same' they are not entitled for any relief. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel submits that if petitioners submit individual representations setting out their eligibiiity in terms of the eligibility criteria in the notification dated 2O. 10.2006 ald in terms of the orders in Writ Appeals stated supra as also the Special Leave Petitions, respondent Corporation will consider the same and pass appropriate orders, rdalce with law. In view of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Corporation, with the consent of both the parties, without going into merits, the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing petitioners to submit individual representations setting out their eligibility in terms of the eligibility criteria in the Notification dated 2O' 10'20O6 and in terms of the .iudgment dated 10.11.2009 in Writ Appeal No' 1434 of 2O08 and batch, judgment dated 17.11,2009 in Writ Appeal No. 1523 of 2008 and batch and order dated

25.02.20]19 in SLP No. 15O01-15i 10 of 2O13 and batch. The same shall be considered by the Corporations and appropriate I 't 13 orders be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 7 . Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 14s Februarv 2025