WP/13416/1999 of T.Jaffer Sadak, Vs The A.P., Transco on 26 December 2006

:: O R D E R ::

Counsel for the petitioners : Shri M. ViswanadhamCounsel for the respondents : Shri Samineni Kishore Dated: 26.12.2006

In this petition, the petitioners have prayed forquashing the decision of the Superintending Engineer,A.P. Transco (APSEB), Anantapur (respondent No.2) totreat them ineligible for appointment and for issue of amandamus to the respondents to appoint them as JuniorLinemen or other suitable post against the existingvacancies in accordance with the policy contained inB.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1987 issued by the erstwhileAndhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short ‘theBoard’).

In the affidavit filed by Shri T. Jaffer Sadak –petitioner No.1, it has been averred that all the petitionershave worked as casual labourers with the contractorsengaged by the Board; that they fulfilled the conditions ofeligibility specified in B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997; thatthey were interviewed by the selection committee, buttheir candidature were rejected on the spacious groundthat the certificates produced by them have not beencountersigned by the officers of the Board and they werenot on the rolls of the contractor on 18.05.1997.

In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri B.S.Ramachandra Rao, Assistant Secretary (legal) ofrespondent No.1 Corporation, it has been averred that the petitioners were not considered for the post of JuniorLineman because none of them possesses thequalifications prescribed for that post. The deponent hasfurther averred that the certificates produced by thepetitioners at the time of interview were not acceptedbecause the same were not genuine. He further averredthat the candidature of some of the petitioners were notconsidered because they were not on the rolls on18.05.1997.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties andperused the record. It is borne out from the record that incompliance of the directions given by this Court in WritPetition Nos.29735, 28468 and 28125 of 1997 and 6090of 1998, the petitioners were interviewed by the committeeconstituted by respondent No.2 for the purpose ofconsideration of their claim for appointment in the light ofB.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997, but their candidaturewere rejected on the ground that they do not fulfill theconditions of eligibility or they were not on the rolls on18.05.1997.

Although the rejection of candidature of some of thepetitioners on the ground that they were not on the rolls on18.05.1997 is not legally tenable because this is not oneof the conditions of eligibility specified in B.P.Ms.No.36dated 18.05.1997 and the subsequent B.P.Ms. No. 271dated 31.12.1997 cannot be invoked in the cases of the petitioners, it is not possible to grant relief to the petitionersbecause,

(1) none of them possess the qualificationsprescribed for appointment to the post of Junior Linemanvide B.P.Ms.No.1048 dated 23.09.1989 read with memoNo. DP/DM-1/A2/762/94-1 dated 23.10.1994. For thesake of convenient reference, contents of both thedocuments 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 followingqualifications for the post of Helpers.

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

Procedure

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 APSEBoard 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 force with immediate effect.”

A conjoint reading of the above reproducedconditions shows that the post of Helper has been redesignated as Junior Lineman/Junior Plant Attendantand the minimum qualifications prescribed for that postare pass in SSLC/SSC/10[th] class and ITI preferably withElectrician trade or vocational course in electrical trade. Itis neither the pleaded case of the petitioners nor anydocument has been produced on the record of the writpetition that either of them possesses the qualificationslaid down by the Board for the recruitment of JuniorLineman. Therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot beissued to the respondents to consider the candidature ofthe petitioners, and

2) the certificates produced by the petitioners wererightly not entertained by the selecting authority because,the same neither bear the date of issue nor countersignedby any officer of the Board. Even the total period duringwhich the individual petitioner worked with the contractorhas not been specified in any of the certificates. It canthus be said that the certificates produced by thepetitioners sans credibility and the same cannot be madebasis for entertaining their claim for being appointed asJunior Lineman.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition isdismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition,W.P.M.P.No. 16411 of 1999 filed by the petitioners forinterim relief is also dismissed.

26.12.2006ksld

G.S.SINGHVI, CJ