Telangana High Court

Effatulla Baig, Nizamabad. vs Northern Power Distribution Company Of ... on 12 November, 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
              WRIT PETITION No.20270 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)/AS(L)/PO-H3/WP 7909/05-08 dt. 18.02.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as LDC on par with other candidates appointed pursuant to the Notification, dated 24.04.2001 duly granting all other consequential benefits."

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 3rd respondent from 01.05.1995 to 10.05.2001.

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 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 or any other initial recruitment cadre, he

had submitted an application along with all the certificates

including the service certificate issued by the contractor and

counter signed by the departmental official.

(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 once again

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 2nd respondent vide

notification dated 30.01.2003 declared the results of interview

as "NIL".

No.3040 of 2003 before this court. The said Writ Petition was

disposed of by an order dated 28.02.2004 directing the

respondents to consider petitioner's case in the light of

observations made in W.P.No.6546 of 2003 and batch for his

absorption, pursuant to BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997.

Despite such direction given by this Court, the respondents

issued a letter, dated 08.01.2005 rejecting the petitioner's case

on the ground of agreements indicated in the service certificate

were commenced and completed before 18.05.1997 or after

18.05.1997, as such the petitioner cannot be treated as on

rolls as on 18.05.1997.

(d) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again

filed W.P.No.7909 of 2005, challenging the letter, dated

08.01.2005. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated

13.03.2006 set aside the said letter, dated 08.01.2005 and

directed the respondents to conduct enquiry and during the

enquiry, if it is found that the petitioner to be on the rolls as on

18.05.1997, then the petitioner's case shall be considered in

future vacancies as and when arise, subject to completion of

other conditions. Again, letter dated 26.08.2006 was issued by

the 2nd respondent, rejecting the petitioner's case on the

ground that contractor has not maintained the registers

according to the Labour Act, 1970 and the service certificate

issued to him is not genuine.

(e) Ultimately, vide impugned letter dated 18.02.2008,

once again the case of the petitioner was rejected holding that

the contractor has not engaged anybody permanently and

conditionally. As such, the service certificate issued by him

holding that the petitioner worked as contract labour from

03.06.1995 to 30.09.1999 is not correct and genuine. Having

vexed with the rejection orders, the petitioner filed the present

Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the

respondents are bent upon to reject the petitioner's case on one

pretext or the other. As per the judgment of this court in

W.P.No.3040 of 2003, relying upon the service certificate

issued by the contractor, which was counter signed by

Departmental Official, the petitioner's case may be considered.

But, by disbelieving the said certificates, the petitioner's case

cannot be rejected. The impugned letter does not state that the

petitioner was not on the rolls as on 18.05.1997. Therefore,

relying upon the vague allegation of the contractor he did not

engage anybody continuously, it cannot be construed that the

petitioner was not on rolls as on 18.05.1997. In WP No. 7909 of

2005 this court vide order dated 13.03.2006 directed to

conduct enquiry by fixing a date by summoning the contractor

and the petitioners to find out the fact whether petitioner were

on rolls as on 18.05.1997 or not. Without any such finding,

the case of the petitioner was rejected arbitrarily, which is

incorrect. 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-Per) 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 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.3040 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 08.01.2005,

necessary speaking orders were issued to the petitioner

indicating the reasons for his non-selection to the post.

08.01.2005, 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 13.03.2006 in W.P.No.7909 of 2005 and batch, passed

the following:

"The respondents are directed to conduct necessary enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the service certificates issued by the contractor in favour of the petitioners and to verify as to whether the petitioners were on rolls as on 18.05.1997 or not so as to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. After such enquiry, if it is found that the petitioners were on rolls as on 18.05.1997, their claims shall be considered in the

future vacancies as and when they arise, subject to the compliance of all other conditions."

(d) In pursuance of the above orders of the Hon'ble

High Court, vide proceedings, dated 02.04.2007, the Divisional

Engineer/MRT/Nirmal 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, accepting with the findings of the Enquiry Officer,

rejected the case of the petitioner for the post of LDC vide

proceedings, dated 18.02.2008.

(e) In pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated

13.03.2006 in W.P.No.7909 of 2005, the petitioner filed the

contempt case in C.C. No.226 of 2007, 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 18.02.2008

shows that the Divisional Engineer/MRT/Nirmal, duly

complying with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.,

in its order dated. 13.03.2006, held a detailed enquiry and

submitted his enquiry report stating that as per the Service

Certificate issued to the petitioner, he was engaged as

"Contract Labour" from 01.01.1995 to 10.05.2001 under Sri

Namdev, Contractor. But the said Contractor during enquiry

informed that he had not engaged anybody permanently and

continuously. The Agreements quoted in the service certificate

in 20/97-98, 24/97-98 & 11/98-99, whereas the service

certificate issued by the Contractor is from 01.01.1995 to

10.05.2001. Hence, service certificate produced by the

candidate is defective and not correct. In the written statement,

the petitioner had informed that he does not know pole

climbing. Without knowledge of the pole climbing, it is not

possible to complete the electricity line erection works and

services disconnection and reconnection work. The service

certificate issued by the Contractor to the petitioner is

defective. In view of the above lacunae, the respondent

authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner.

7. 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.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the ground mentioned in the rejection order, dated

18.02.2008 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, it cannot be