Telangana High Court
F.Om Prakash, Rajaramnagar,Armoor, ... vs Northern Power Distribution Co.Of ... on 12 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.20956 OF 2008
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting
petitioner's case for being appointed as LDC as illegal
and arbitrary and set-a-side the letter
No.CGM(HRD)/GM(IR&L)/AS-(L)/PO-H-3/WP No.
4629/2005-08 dt.28.02.2008 issued by the 2nd
respondent. Consequently, direct the respondents to
appoint the petitioner as LDC duly granting all other
consequential benefits on part with his colleagues
who were selected and appointed in terms of
Notification, dated 24.04.2001."
2. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing
Counsel for Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.,
Telangana, appearing for the respondents. Perused the
material available on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) The petitioner worked as a Contract Labour in the
office of the 3rdrespondent from 01.08.1994 to 05.11.1999. BP
Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 was issued by the erstwhile
APSEB, as a consequence of settlement entered into between
the Trade Unions and Management, mandates that 50% posts
of initial recruitment cadre should be filled in considering the
Ex-Casual labour, Contract Labour and VEWs. The 3rd
respondent issued a Notification, dated 24.04.2001, calling
upon from the eligible candidates to apply for the post of initial
recruitment cadre as per BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. As
the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible for being
appointed as LDC, he had submitted his application along with
all the certificates including the service certificate issued by the
contractor and counter signed by the departmental officials.
(b) Thereafter, all the applications and certificates
produced by the candidates were scrutinized by the officials of
the 1st respondent and thereafter petitioner's name was
included in the list of qualified and eligible candidates for
selection and the same was placed on the Notice Board. After
conducting the interviews, the respondents have referred the
matter to Vigilance Authorities for verification of service
certificates produced by the selected candidates. Having
verified, the Vigilance Authorities reported that, the service
certificate produced by the petitioner is correct and genuine.
After the said report, the respondents issued a Notification
published in the Vaartha Telugu daily, dated 13.01.2003
holding that there are no successful candidates and the result
of interview held as "NIL".
(c) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P.
No.6546 of 2003 before this court. The said Writ Petition was
adjudicated along with the batch of Writ Petitions i.e. W.P.
No.5158 of 2003, dated 28.10.2004. While adjudicating the
above batch of Writ Petitions, this Court categorically observed
as follows:
"It is for the respondent board to verify the certificates
produced by the petitioners with reference to the
agreements awarded to the contractor, which were
verified and counter signed by the official respondents.
Therefore, the action of the respondents in simply
rejecting the cases of the petitioners based on the
Vigilance Inspector's report on the ground that the
contract has not produced the aforesaid registers is
unreasonable and unsustainable. Accordingly, the
respondents are directed to verify the certificates issued
by the contractor and counter signed by the officials of
the respondents with reference to the agreements under
which particular contract labours are engaged as on
18.05.1997 and consider their cases for appointment in
accordance with BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997"
Despite such direction given by this Court, the
respondents issued a letter, dated 31.12.2004 rejecting the
petitioner's case on the ground that the petitioner claims to
have worked from 01.08.1994 to 05.11.1998 under K2
agreement No.22/96-97. The petitioner was therefore not on
the rolls as on 18.05.1997 and hence could not be considered.
(d) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again
filed W.P.No.4629 of 2005, challenging the letter, dated
31.12.2004. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated
03.01.2007 disposed of the writ petition, giving liberty to the
petitioner to produce all the relevant material before the 2nd
respondent. Pursuant to the above direction, petitioner
submitted representation, duly enclosing the education
qualifications and also service certificates and requested to
appoint him as LDC in terms of BP Ms.No.36, dated
18.05.1997. However, without considering the submissions
made by the petitioner, in gross violation of the earlier orders
passed by the court in WP No.5746 of 2003, the 2nd respondent
issued Memo, dated 28.02.2008, once again rejecting the
petitioner's case. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning
the order, dated 28.02.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents are bent upon to reject the case of the petitioner
on one pretext or the other. The service certificate produced by
the petitioner clearly establishes that he worked as Contract
Labour from 01.08.1994 to 05.11.1998 under K2 agreement
No.22/96-97 and the said certificate was even counter signed
by the departmental officials. As such, he is a contract labour
as on the cut of date i.e. 18.05.1997, therefore, by showing
those untenable reasons, the petitioner cannot be deprived of
his appointment. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter and
submits as follows:
(a) That in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 orders
were issued for filling up of 50% of the existing vacant posts of
LDCs/Typist/JPOs/Ex-Casual Labour/VEWs and Contract
Labour existing as on that day subject to fulfilling the
conditions mentioned therein. Accordingly, Notification was
issued on 28.04.2001 inviting the applications from the desired
candidates. While so, inasmuch as the petitioner herein, who
applied for the post of LDC/Typist, had failed to oblige the
conditions laid down therein, he could not be selected. Since
no successful candidates were available in the interview, NIL
results were notified in the daily Newspaper.
(b) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed Writ
Petition seeking directions to the respondents to declare the
said results as illegal. In pursuance of the above, the Hon'ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated
28.10.2004 in WP.No.5158 of 2003 & W.P.No.6546 of 2003 and
batch, set aside the above NIL results and directed to consider
the case inter alia of the case of the petitioner in the light of
observation made in B.P(P&G-Per) Ms.No.36, dated
18.05.1997. In pursuance of the above order, since the
petitioner did not qualify in proceedings, dated 31.12.2004,
speaking orders were issued to the petitioner indicating the
reasons for his non-selection to the post.
(c) Aggrieved by the above rejection orders, dated
31.12.2004, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the
Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking direction to the
respondents to quash the said speaking orders. While so, the
Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order,
dated 03.01.2007 in W.P.No.4629 of 2005 and batch, passed
the following:
"1. The petitioners are at liberty to produce all the
relevant material before the Chief General Manager of the
respondent organization on or before 24-02-07 to
substantiate their claim.
2. On receiving such material, the Chief General Manager
is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in the
light of the material to be produced by the petitioners and
the record available with them and pass a speaking
order as expeditiously as possible."
(d) In pursuance of the above orders of the Hon'ble
High Court, vide proceedings, dated 02.05.2007, the
Superintending Engineer/Operation/ DPE/ NPDC Ltd., was
appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the material
produced by the petitioner for considering his case for the post
of LDC. The Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed
enquiry submitted that the service certificate produced by the
petitioner is not genuine. The respondents after a detailed
examination of the report, decisively accepting with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer, rejected the case of the
petitioner for the post of LDC vide proceedings, dated
28.02.2008.
(e) In pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated
03.01.2007 in W.P.No.4629 of 2005, the petitioner filed the
contempt case in C.C. No.173 of 2008, and the same was
dismissed. Thus, the petitioner had failed to prove the
genuineness of the service certificate produced by him. Thus,
the action taken by the respondents herein rejecting this case
is justified. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
6. A perusal of the impugned Order, dated 28.02.2008
shows that the respondent authorities have rejected the case of
the petitioner by observing as follows:
"The contractor during the enquiry has revealed that he
has issued service certificate to Sri G. Omprakash, but
records are not available with him, because nobody has
told him to maintain records. His said utterance of
unavailability of records in guise of that he has not been
sensitized or not informed by anybody is purely a
manufactured and invented one for his easy way out
from his contractual obligations inter alia from the
producibility of the mandated records under Labour Act.
His said lying act will not legalise the wrongous service
certificate issued by him. His agreeability to the work
awarded to him lays down a binding force on him for the
scrupulous maintenance of records as per the statutory
Acts and to keep them updated for perusal until the
agreement loses its essence for its enforcement. Thus the
service certificate which was issued by him evidently has
lost its substantialism. The taking away of K2
agreements by the APTS wing has no bearing to
determine the genuineness of the service certificate.
The service certificate about petitioner's working under
the above contractor from 1-8-1994 to till date (i.e.
5.11.99) is false and deceptive as he himself deposed
during the enquiry that his period of service with the
contractor is from 08/94 to 09/95. Thus, he failed to
oblige the conditions laid down in BP ((P7G-Per) Ms.No.36
dt. 18-5-1997.
As above, there is a serious deviousness in the service
certificate produced by the petitioner.
From the above, it is established that the concept of
unavailableness of records has lost its significance to
defend the correctness of the service certificate in the
matter. The petitioner resorted to deceitful methods by
way of producing a fake certificate.
Thus, it is found that the service certificate produced by
the petitioner Sri G. Omprakash is not genuine."
7. The main observation of the respondent authorities is
that the contractor during the enquiry revealed that he had
issued service certificate to Sri G. Omprakash, but records are
not available with him. He is under obligation to produce the
mandated records under Labour Act. The work awarded to
him, lays down a binding force on him for the thorough
maintenance of records as per the Statutory Acts and to keep
them updated for perusal until the agreement loses its essence
for its enforcement. Thus, the service certificate which was
issued by him evidently has lost its significance. According to
the respondent authorities, the service certificate which refers
petitioner's working under the above contractor from
01.08.1994 to 05.11.1999 is false and deceptive as he himself
deposed during the enquiry that his period of service with the
contractor is from 08/94 to 09/95. Thus, he failed to oblige
the conditions laid down in BP ((P7G-Per) Ms.No.36, dated
18.05.1997. Since the service certificate issued by the
Contractor is defective, the respondent authorities have
rejected the case of the petitioner.
8. To fortify their contention, the respondent authorities
have relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in
W.P.No.6498 of 2008 wherein similar set of facts were brought
before the Court by the petitioners therein and the same was
dismissed by observing as follows:
"It is only the contract labour, that have been engaged at
a particular point of time, that were entitled to be
regularized, in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36. On an earlier
occasion, the cases of the petitioners were rejected, on
the ground that they failed to prove the fact that they
have been engaged by labour contractor. When they
approached this court, a specific direction was issued to
the petitioners, as well as to the respondents, as regards
the verification of record. On their part, the respondents
got a vigilance enquiry conducted. The contractor, who
issued the certificates, did not produce any record, and
categorically stated that he did not maintain the same.
An official, who endorsed on the certificates, refused to
appear in the enquiry. At one point of time, he deposed
that he no doubt endorsed on the certificates, but did not
verify any record, such as Attendance Register,
Acquittance Register, etc. With this back ground, the
petitioners cannot be said to have proved their cases that
they have been engaged as contract labour, on an earlier
occasion. Under these circumstances, this court is not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order."
Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners therein
preferred an appeal by filing Writ Appeal No.958 of 2008 before
this Court and the same was dismissed by observing that the
petition involves disputed questions of fact, and therefore, the
learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the grounds mentioned in the rejection order, dated
28.02.2008 is unsustainable. This argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as while rejecting
the claim of the petitioner, the respondent authorities found
that the foundational document i.e. service certificate suffers
from material lacunae and lacks authenticity. Thus, it cannot
be accorded any evidentiary value for consideration. In view of
the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Dated: 12.11.2025
BDR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.20956 OF 2008
Date:12.11.2025
BDR
