WP/9882/2007 of K.Subramanyam Vs The Chairman AND Managing director, on 27 December 2007

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in not issuing call letter to the petitioner toattend the interview held on 27.4.2007 to the post of Junior Lineman,Operation Circle, APSPDCL, Kadapa stating that the Electrical Wiringand Contracting (EWC) and Electrical Wiring and Servicing ofElectrical Appliances (EW & SEA) are not one and the same asarbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice andalso violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Indiabesides opposed to public policy and consequently direct therespondents to conduct interview to the petitioner to the post of JuniorLineman.

It appears, a notification was issued by the second respondenton 6.6.2006 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the postof Junior Lineman on yearly contract basis. The Chairperson andManaging Director, A.P.TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad hadgiven a clarification to the Chairman and Managing Director,EPDCL/Visakhapatnam, SPDCL/Tirupathi, NPDCL/Warangal,CPDCL/ Hyderabad vide letter dated 6.7.2006 stating; “Keeping in view the relevance of the skills acquired in ITI,candidates possessing ITI qualification in Wireman trade andLineman trade, as well as Vocational Course in Electricaltrade may also be considered for recruitment of JLMs oncontract basis”.

Further, a revised notification was also issued on 10.7.2006 callingapplications from the eligible candidates fixing the last date for receipt of the applications as 14.11.2006. As per the revised notification, thequalification to the post of Junior Lineman is SSLC/SSC/10[th] classwith ITI qualification in electrical wireman trade or intermediatevocational course in electrical trade is compulsory. As per the letterdated 6.7.2006 and revised notification, according to the petitioner, heis fully eligible to apply to the post of Junior Lineman. In pursuance ofthis notification, petitioner applied to the post of Junior Lineman withinthe time along with requisite certificates. On a clarification sought as toambiguity in regard to qualification by respondents, the Commissionerof Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad addressed aletter to the Chairman and Managing Director, Southern PowerDistribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Operation Circle,Tirupathi vide proceedings dated 20.4.2007 stating; “This is to inform that EDAR and EWC / IntermediateVocational courses have been clubbed and given thenomenclature as EW & SEA. Hence the old pass outs ofEDAR and EWC of two year Intermediate Vocational CourseStudents in qualification and the courses are related toElectrical Engineering. Therefore, the students of EDAR,EWC & EW and SEA Inter pass outs may be treated on parwith all other Electrical Course students eligible for Linemenand other equivalent posts in your department”.

It was further clarified by the District Vocational Education Officer(FAC), Kadapa to the Southern Power Distribution Company ofAndhra Pradesh Ltd., Operation Circle, Tirupathi vide proceedings inRc.No.Spl/A/2007 dated 24.4.2007 stating; “I came to know that the Southern Power DistributionCompany is rejecting applications of Intermediate Vocationalstudents who have studied EWC vocational course. I wish tostate that EWC course is also an electrical course andwhether the candidates who have studied have been selectedfor Lineman post. The EWC course is renamed as EW &

SEA and nomenclature is changed and EWC course is notfunctioning now. With the same syllabus the course is nowrenamed as EW & SEA. Hence, I request you to consider theapplication of EWC vocational students for recruitment asLineman. The Officers of Intermediate Board have clarifiedthat EWC and EW & SEA are equivalent”.

Thus, according to the petitioner, he is also eligible to apply the post ofJunior Lineman, since he has completed vocational course in thenomenclature of EWC. Though the respondents issued call letters tothe persons who are similarly as that of the petitioner, to attendinterviews to be held on 27.4.2007, petitioner was not issued with suchcall letter. Therefore, petitioner immediately approached therespondents ventilating his grievance and respondents replied thatsince petitioner is having qualification of only EWC (Electrical Wiringand Contracting), no call letter was issued to him. It is the case of thepetitioner that he did his apprentice for a period of one year in theDivisional Office, Rajampet, APSPDCL and has been working as acontract labour since 2004 till date in Sub-Station, Bestapalli,Rajampet division, Kadapa district. In fact, EPF No.AP/43409/14 wasalso allotted to him. Therefore, there is no justification on the part ofrespondents in not issuing call letter to petitioner to attend theinterview held on 27.4.2007.

On behalf of respondents, third respondent filed a detailedcounter denying allegations made by the petitioner and asserting thatthe qualification required for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman(contract) was pass in SSLC/SSC/10[th] class with ITI qualification inElectrical/Wiremen Trade or Intermediate Vocational course inElectrical Trade. Petitioner possesses qualification in IntermediateVocational course in Electrical Wiring and Contracting (EWC), whichis not a requisite qualification in terms of the notification. In the

notification, it was clearly specified that the vocational course inElectrical Trade is only considered for recruitment to the post of JuniorLineman on contract basis. Therefore, petitioner is not eligible to beconsidered since he did not possess requisite qualification for the postof Junior Lineman on yearly contract basis. As per the notification, firstpreference would be given to the contract labours, who were workingin terms of the notification. Out of the notified vacancies, eleven (11)vacancies are earmarked in favour of SC/ST/BC-C categories and allother vacancies are filled up. Petitioner does not belong to either ofthe categories. The clarification dated 6.7.2006 has not been properlyunderstood by the petitioner. The vocational course in ElectricalTrade was considered for recruitment to the post of Junior Lineman. The notification dated 6.6.2006 was revised on 20.10.2006, whereineducational qualifications prescribed are SSLC/SSC/10[th] class withITI qualification in Electrical/Wireman Trade or Intermediate Vocationalcourse in Electrical Trade. Since petitioner does not have thequalification of intermediate vocational course in electrical trade, he isnot eligible for the post of Junior Lineman. The letter dated 20.4.2007issued by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education has norelevance inasmuch as no clarification was sought from theCommissioner of Intermediate Education. Similarly, the letter of theDistrict Educational Officer dated 24.4.2007 is also irrelevant for thepresent facts of the case, inasmuch as no clarification or opinion wassought for. Petitioner has studied Intermediate Vocational Course inElectrical Wiring and Contracting (EWC). The Electrical Wiring andContracting is not equivalent to Electrical Trade. Therefore, petitionercannot be said to be possessed of the requisite qualification for thepost of Junior Lineman. The unsolicited clarification issued by theCommissioner of Intermediate Education issued was not taken into consideration.

I have given my earnest consideration to the respectivesubmissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perusedthe material made available on record.

The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petitionis whether the qualification issued by the Commissioner ofIntermediate Education dated 20.4.2007 and the letter addressed bythe District Educational Officer dated 24.4.2007 could have been takeninto consideration by the respondents for the purpose of consideringqualification held by the petitioner as required under notification.

The letter of the Commissioner of Intermediate Education dated20.4.2007 is very clear that the old pass outs of EDAR and EWC oftwo year Intermediate Vocational Course are equivalent to the presentEWC & SEA and the courses are related to Electrical Engineering. EDAR and EWC Intermediate Vocational Courses have been clubbedand given the new nomenclature of EWC & SEA, which wascommunicated to the respondents. The competent authority to clarifyin this regard is no doubt the Commissioner of Intermediate Education,A.P., Hyderabad. But it is unfortunate that the respondents neglectedthe said clarification. The respondents should have sought for furtherclarification, if necessary, from the Commissioner of IntermediateEducation. In fact, it is not the case of respondents that the clarificationissued by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education that EDAR andEWC courses have been clubbed and given a new nomenclature asEWA & SEA. Once the vocational courses have been clubbed and anew nomenclature is given, it is not expected from the petitioner toproduce a certificate showing the qualification as required in thenotification. Further, it is interesting to notice that this EWC certificateof Intermediate Vocational Course is also of two years course and related to Electrical Engineering. Therefore, the irresistible conclusionthat can be drawn is that the opinion rendered by the Commissioner ofIntermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad is binding on therespondents and the respondents cannot brush aside such aclarification stating that it was an unsolicited clarification. Thisamounts to degrading the authority of Commissioner of IntermediateEducation, A.P., Hyderabad. If really, for any reason, the respondentshave entertained any doubt, it was always open for them to seek afurther clarification. Instead of doing that, the case of the petitioner wasrejected on the ground that he does not possess the requisitequalification as per the notification. May be, what is required by thenotification was Intermediate Vocational Course in Electrical Trade. But in the teeth of the certificate issued by the authorities and theclarification issued by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, itcannot be said that the course undergone by the petitioner cannot betreated as Intermediate Vocational Course in Electrical Trade.

Under these circumstances, rejection of case of the petitioner forbeing interviewed along with others for the post of Junior Lineman(contract) is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the respondents aredirected to subject the petitioner to interview and selection process asper the notification treating the Intermediate Vocational Course inElectrical Wiring and Contracting (EWC) as equivalent to that ofIntermediate Vocational Course in SEA and consider for appointmentof the petitioner as Junior Lineman (contract), if he is otherwise eligibleas per law, either in the existing vacancies or in future vacancies (i.e.after completion of one year contract period of Junior Linemanappointed in pursuance of the notification).

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Noorder as to costs.

Date: .12.2007

____________C.V.RAMULU, J

DA

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

.12.2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

W.P.No.9882 of 2007

Date: December, 2007

Between:

K.Subramanyam

.. Petitioner

And

Conclusion

The Chairman and Managing Director,APSPDC Ltd., Corporate Office,Tirupati, Chittoor district & others.

.. Respondents