WP/6694/1999 of Sareddi Vemareddy, Vs The Superintending Engineer, on 26 December 2006

:: O R D E R ::

Counsel for the petitioner : Shri M. Subba Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Shri Samineni Kishore Dated: 26.12.2006

This petition is the second round of litigationinstituted by the petitioner for his appointment as JuniorLineman in the services of the erstwhile Andhra PradeshState Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’).

A perusal of the record shows that Writ PetitionNo.32035 of 1997 filed by the petitioner and others forissue of a direction to the respondents to consider theircases for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman wasdisposed of by the learned Single Judge on 02.12.1997with the direction that the candidature of the petitioners beconsidered in accordance with the provisions contained inB.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. In compliance of theCourt’s order, the petitioner was interviewed on13.04.1998, but his candidature was rejected on theground that he does not possess the essentialqualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Linemanand also on the ground that he was not on the rolls of thecontractor on 18.05.1997.

Although the respondents have not filed counter-affidavit, I do not consider it necessary to deferadjudication of the writ petition because after hearinglearned counsel for the parties and perusing the recordand going through B.P.Ms.No.1048 dated 23.09.1989 andmemo No.DP/DM-1/A2/762/94-1 dated 23.10.1994, I am convinced that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidaturedoes not suffer from any constitutional or legal infirmity. For the sake of convenient reference, B.P.Ms.No.1048dated 23.09.1989 vide which qualifications wereprescribed for the post of Helper and memo dated23.10.1994 by which the post of Helper was re-designated as Junior Lineman are reproduced below:

“B.P.Ms.No. 1048:

Proceedings:

As per the existing O.S.S. Non-Statutory Rules the following are the qualificationsprescribed for the post of Helper.

i)Ability to read and write.

ii)One year practical experience either in O&M/Construction works.

The above qualifications were prescribed in the year 1958 and continued as such tilltodate. But the time of prescribing the abovequalifications there were no qualifiedcandidates. But, in view of the abovecircumstances, several persons with academicqualifications and technical qualifications areavailable now. It is therefore considereddesirable to prescribe higher qualifications fordirect recruitment of Helpers.

The A.P. State Electricity Board aftercareful consideration prescribes the following qualifications for the post of Helpers.

i)A pass in SSLC/SSC/10[th] class;

ii)A pass in ITI preferably with Electrician Trade or

iii)Vocational course in Electrical trade.

These orders will come into effect from the date of issue.”

“ REDESIGNATIONS & CHANGE OFNOMENCLATUREANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITYBOARD VIDYUTSOUDHA:: HYDERABAD -49--Memo No.DP/DM1/A2/762/941:

Dated:

23.10.1994

Sub: Establishment –APSEB – O&M/Const.Estt. change of Designation of Helper as Jr.Lineman and Jr. Plant Attendant – Orders –Issued.

The issue regarding redesignation ofHelper is under consideration of the Boardsince long back.

2. After careful consideration the APSE

Board directs that posts of ‘Helper’ inO&M/Construction establishment shall beredesignated as indicated below:

i)‘Junior Lineman’ – in Operationcircles/TLC/Construction circles etc;

ii)

‘Junior Plant Attendent’ – in GeneratingStations/Projects.

3. However there shall be no change infunctions and duties, service conditions etc;and these orders are only mere redesignationof the posts.

4. These orders shall come into forcewith immediate effect.”

A conjoint reading of the above re-produced documents shows that SSLC/SSC/10[th] class pass and ITIin Electrician trade or vocational course were essential

qualifications for recruitment as Junior Lineman. Thepetitioner is 12[th] passed, but he is not shown to havepassed ITI in the trade of Electrician or vocational coursein the said trade. Therefore, there is no escape from theconclusion that the petitioner was not eligible to beconsidered for appointment as Junior Lineman andrespondent No.2 did not commit any illegality by rejectinghis candidature.

As a sequel to the above, I hold that the Courtcannot issue a mandamus to the respondents to appointthe petitioner as Junior Lineman and the writ petition isliable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition,W.P.M.P.No. 8369 of 1999 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is also dismissed.

G.S.SINGHVI, CJ