WP/15418/2007 of B.jagadeeshwar, Vs The AP Central Power Distribution company Ltd., rep.by on 26 December 2007

O r d e r:

The petitioner passed SSC and possesses certificate in Wiring Course issued by SBTE & T, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Thepetitioner claims to have been working as contract casual labour through aprivate contractor for the respondents since 1997. In response to thenotification dated 08.6.2006 read with the revised notification, issued by therespondents for recruitment to the posts of Contract Junior Linemen, thepetitioner submitted his application. As the respondents did not issue callletter to the petitioner on the ground that he does not possess ITI qualificationin Electrical Trade, he filed writ petition in W.P. No. 11383 of 2007, and inpursuance of the directions dated 04.06.2007 made by this Courts, therespondents permitted the petitioner to attend the interview. The petitionerstates that in the interview, he passed the Pole Climbing Test conducted bythe respondents. The petitioner states that he having passed the PoleClimbing Test and he having worked for the respondents for more than 10years as contract labour, despite his not-possessing ITI certificate inElectrical or Wireman Trade, is entitled to be appointed as Contract JuniorLinemen, and the action of the respondents in passing orders dated30.06.2007, rejecting his case for appointment, is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionerpassed SSC and possesses certificate in Wireman course, issued by SBTE& T, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and even though he does not possessthe certificate in I.T.I. in Electrical Trade, as required by the notification, butsince the petitioner has been working for the respondents as contract labour since 1997, he has gained sufficient experience, and having regard to thejudgment of the apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation[[1]], he is entitled to be given preference in thematter of recruitment, and the action of the respondents in passing theimpugned order dated 30.06.2007, rejecting the case of the petitioner forappointment as Contract Junior Lineman on the ground that he does notpossess ITI certificate in Electrical or Wireman Trade, is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the respondentsbe directed to appoint him as Contract Junior Lineman.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSPDCL submitted that as per the notification, the candidate shouldpossess SSC with I.T.I. certificate in Electrical/Wireman Trade, and inasmuchas the petitioner does not possess I.T.I. certificate in Electrical/WiremanTrade, but possesses certificate in Wireman course, issued by SBTE & T,Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is not the qualification prescribed inthe notification, the respondents passed the impugned order, rejecting thecase of the petitioner for appointment as Contract Junior Lineman, and noexception can be taken thereto. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writpetition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned StandingCounsel for the respondents-APSPDCL.

As per Condition No. 6(i) of the revised notification, the qualificationsprescribed for appointment as Contract Junior Lineman are that thecandidates should have passed SSC/SSLC/10[th] Class with I.T.I. certificate inElectrical/Wireman Trade or Intermediate Vocational Course in ElectricalTrade. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess I.T.I. certificate in therequired Electrical/Wireman Trade, but possesses certificate in Wiremancourse, issued by SBTE & T, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Unless anduntil the candidates satisfy the qualifications prescribed in Condition No. 6(i)

of the revised notification, it is the case of the respondents that the candidatesirrespective of their having worked with the respondents, are not entitled to beconsidered as per Condition No. 6(I)(b) of the revised notification. Inasmuchas the petitioner did not satisfy the qualifications prescribed in Condition No.6(i) of the revised notification, in that he possesses certificate in Wiremancourse, issued by SBTE & T, Government of Andhra Pradesh, a certificatedifferent from the one required by the respondents, no exception can be takento the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner forappointment to the post of Contract Junior Linemen. May be the petitionerhad worked with the respondents for more than 10 years and had gainedsufficient experience, but that by itself is no ground for this Court to direct therespondents to appoint a person, who does not possess the qualifications asprescribed in the notification, and more so when this Court in W.P. No. 8257of 1998 and batch, dated 02.01.2007, held that when the Board ServiceRegulations prescribe a particular qualification, the candidates seekingselection, should pass such qualification, and that this Court in exercise of itsjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot relax theprescribed qualification. In that view of the matter, no exception can be takento the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitionerfor appointment as Contract Junior Lineman.

There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordinglydismissed. No costs.

Dated: 26[th] December, 2007.KSR

_________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.