Telangana High Court
Vidya Sagar, vs Northern Power Dist. Co. Of Ap. Ltd. And 2 ... on 13 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.20702 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 aside the letter
No.CGM(HRD)/GM(IR&L)/AS-(L)/PO-H3/WP No.
7038 of 2005-08 dt.18.02.2008 issued by the
2ndrespondent. Consequently, direct the respondents
to appoint the petitioner as LDC 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 under the
3rd respondent from 01.06.1996 to 30.06.1999 vide agreement
No.27, 50 and 57/95-96, 13, 49/96-97, 70/95-98 and check
measured on 29.09.1997. 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 3rdrespondent 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, 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 respondents issued a
Notification published in the Vaartha Telugu daily, dated
13.01.2003, holding that there were no successful candidates
and the result of interview held as "NIL". Aggrieved by the
above, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5158 of 2003. The said Writ
Petition was disposed of on 28.10.2004 along with batch and
this 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".
(c) Despite such clear and categorical direction given
by this Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated
08.01.2005 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for
being appointed as LDC. The reasons stated in the said letter
are not only incorrect but also contrary to the orders of this
court in W.P.No.5158 of 2003. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner once again filed W.P.No.7038 of 2005, challenging
the letter, dated 08.01.2005. Having considered, this Court by
an order, dated 03.01.2007 disposed of the above Writ Petition
by giving liberty to the petitioner to produce all relevant
material before the CGM. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted
a representation, duly enclosing the educational qualifications,
service certificates and requested to appoint him as LDC.
However, once again the petitioner's request was rejected vide
Memo, dated 18.02.2008 of the 2ndrespondent. Hence, the
present Writ Petition.
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. This court categorically held that
that for the fault of Contractor, the contract labour cannot be
punished and find fault with.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the contention of the respondents that the contractor, who
issued the service certificates, had not maintained any record
and hence such certificates are not genuine; is not correct.
The service certificate clearly discloses the period of service of
the petitioner and is counter signed by the departmental
official, even then, the respondents without considering this
fact, had passed the impugned Memo dated 18.02.2008 which
is illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable. If any rule or regulation
mandates the contractor to maintain records, he may be liable
for such lapse. Moreover, merely because the contractor had
stated that he has not maintained records; it does not infer
that the service certificates issued by him were not genuine.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the Contractor categorically admitted that, the service
certificate issued to the petitioner is correct. Further,
departmental official also counter signed the same, which also
authenticates the same. Further, on previous occasion
Vigilance Department verified the same and found it as
genuine. Even the authorities also verified and found it as
correct. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the 2nd respondent
that, as the Contractor did not maintain the records, the
service certificate issued by him is to be treated as not genuine,
is not correct.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as
a matter of fact, while disposing of W.P.No.5158 of 2003, this
Court categorically held that the only criteria in deciding the
genuineness of the cases of the petitioners, as to whether they
worked as on 18.05.1997 or not, will be only on verification of
service certificate issued by the Contractor and counter signed
by the officials of the respondents, with reference to the
agreements entered into with the contractor. The above finding
of this Court has become final; therefore, it is binding on the
respondents. In the earlier round of litigations, the respondents
have opposed petitioner's plea on the ground that, petitioner
was not on the rolls as on 18.05.1997 and that there was no
check measurement and there were no dates, the certificate
does not bear any date. However, while issuing the present
impugned order, dated 18.02.2008, respondents have taken all
together different ground.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the impugned order also discloses that, the Enquiry Officer had
examined the officials, who have counter signed the certificate
issued by the Contractor. The officials accepted that they were
examined in the absence of the petitioner; they have counter
signed the certificate issued by the Contractor after verifying
the agreements, check measurements and that they have been
the petitioner while working as contract labour under the 1st
respondent Company. But, the said statements of the officials
have been completely ignored and the impugned order, dated
18.02.2008 was passed only on the ground that the Contractor
could not maintain the records up to 2007. Hence, the
impugned order is devoid of merits and liable to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the 2ndrespondent 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 available as on 18.05.1997 i.e. LDCs/Typist/JPOs, Ex-
Casual Labour/VEWs and Contract Labour 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. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner filed Writ Petition seeking directions to the
respondents to declare the said results as illegal.
(b) In pursuance of the above, the Hon'ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh by its order, dated 28.10.2004 in WP.No.5158
of 2003 & W.P.No.5746 and batch, set aside the above NIL
results and directed the respondents to consider the case inter
alia of the petitioner in the light of the observation made in
B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Accordingly, necessary
speaking orders were issued to him by this office proceedings
Lr.No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-II/571/04, dated 08.01.2005
communicating the reason for his non-selection to the post.
(c) Aggrieved by the rejection orders of his selection,
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 order 03.01.2007 in
W.P.No.7038 of 2005 and batch passed the common orders as
follows:
1. The petitioners are at liberty to produce all the relevant
material before the Chief General Manager of the
respondent organization on or before 24.02.2007 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 orders Hon'ble High Court of
A.P., dated 03.01.2007 in W.P.No.7038 of 2005, vide Procs. No.
CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-II/PO-IV-24/07, dated 02.05.2007, the
Superintending Engineer/ Operation/ DPE/ NPDC Ltd., was
appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into material
produced by the petitioner for considering his case for
the post of LDC. While so, the Enquiry Officer after conducting
a detailed enquiry has submitted the findings of the enquiry
report, wherein he held that the service certificate produced by
the petitioner is not genuine.
(e) The respondent authorities 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. Accordingly, vide proceedings,
dated 18.02.2008, the petitioner was communicated the
reasons for rejecting of his case for the post of LDC. Thus, the
common orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., dated
03.01.2007 in W.P.No.7038 of 2005 filed by the petitioner have
been scrupulously obeyed. The petitioner terming the action of
the respondent as contempt of the court orders, dated
03.01.2007 in W.P.No.7038 of 2005, filed C.C. No.110 of 2008
and the same was also as dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court
of A.P, by its order, dated 01.05.2008.
(f) Since the petitioner failed to substantiate his date of
engagement as on 18.05.1997 on the rolls of contractors
establishment in terms of B.P. (P&G) Ms.No.36, dated
18.05.1997, his case could not be considered for the post of
LDC. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
10. A perusal of the impugned Order, dated 18.02.2008
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 Vidya Sagar, 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.
While so, blocking of K2 agreement with the APTS
officials has no bearing on the determinability of the
certificate as to its genuineness. Thus, the petitioner's
proposition of his having worked with the contractor from
01-06-1996 to 30-06-1999 with the above untenable
background has lost its accountability for
acknowledgement.
This clearly establishes that the contractor issued
certificate mentioning the period imaginatively to the best
of his memory, but not based on the determinable
recorded facts.
Thus, he is arithmetically indecisive of the exact period of
working by petitioner under him. The endorsement of the
above suspectable period by the departmental officials
has further liberalized and legalized the concept of un-
acceptableness of the certificate.
From the above established reasons it is found that the
Service Certificate produced by the petitioner Sri Vidya
Sagar is not genuine.
11. The main observation of the authorities is that the service
certificate is not genuine in view of the reasons mentioned
supra. 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.
12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the grounds stated in the rejection order are not
sustainable in rejecting the case of the petitioner. This
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted as once the preliminary document i.e. service
certificate has lacunae, it cannot be taken into consideration.
In view of the same, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. 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: 13.11.2025
BDR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.20702 OF 2008
Date:13.11.2025
BDR
