APHC010270192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 860/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in WPNo.24770/2014 dated 21-02-2025 and pass Between: 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRD), APEPDCL, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,, OPERATION APEPDCL, ELURU CIRCLE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (OPERATIONS), APEPDCL, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. SHAIK YOUSUF KHAN, S/o. Shaik Meera, Aged about 28 years, Occ- Former Contract Employee APEPDCL, YSR Nagar Colony, Plot No. 161, Narasapuram, West Godavari District ...RESPONDENT IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 47 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the W.P.No.24770 of 2014 dated 21-2-2025, in the interest of Justice and pass 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the orders passed in WP. 24770 of 2014 dated 21-02- 2025, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P N MURTHY The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.860 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 21.02.2025 in W.P.No.24770 of 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for convenience. 3. The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is as follows: (i) The petitioner worked as Shift Operator at Turputalla Sub-Station from 22.03.2007 to 27.09.2013 on contract basis. While he was working as a Shift Operator in December 2011, the 1st respondent issued a notification for filling up the post of Shift Operators and Junior Lineman. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Lineman. The 1st respondent again issued another notification on 28.02.2014 for filling up vacancies of 937 posts of Junior Lineman including backlog vacancies. Out of 937 posts, 310 posts are sought to be filled up in Eluru Circle, in which the petitioner was working and applied for the post of Junior Lineman. (ii) It is further case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent issued the second notification as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3753 of 2012 and batch wherein this Court while disposing the said writ petition directed the respondents to award weightage marks i.e., 2 marks for per year. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the 1st respondent issued second notification 4 wherein at para III (vi), it was stated that any disruption or discontinuation of service for a period of 180 days and above for whatever reason as a contract worker shall be considered as if it were fresh commencement from the date of resumption after such discontinuation or disruption. Service less 6 months will be considered for weightage. He worked continuously from 22.03.2007 to 27.09.2013 and applied for Junior Lineman post as per the first notification, dated 21.12.2011. As per the Junior Lineman provisional selection list, he secured total 70.05 marks and his name was placed at S.No.31. As per the second notification, the discontinuation period is only 154 days and not more than 180 days whereas the petitioner worked on contract basis for more than 6 ½ years under the control of the 3rd respondent without any remarks whatsoever and as such the petitioner is entitled weightage marks i.e., 2 marks per year. Though the petitioner name is included in the Junior Lineman provisional list in Eluru Circle at S.No.31, the 2nd respondent has not issued the appointment order so far, without any valid reasons. Therefore, he approached this Court seeking redressal. 4. The respondents filed their counter-affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner. 5. The learned Single Judge of this Court after having detailed consideration of the issue involved in the writ petition and upon careful examination of the material available on record including the authoritative pronouncements on the issue involved in the writ petition, allowed the writ petition by order, dated 21.02.2025 directing the respondents to pass 5 appropriate proceedings and issue orders of appointment to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, the respondents in the writ petition preferred the present writ appeal. 7. Heard Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ writ petitioner. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants would submit that the respondents are made it very clear by issuing a Memo No.HRD/MPS/MPP/ F.No.149/12/D.No.326/15, dated 15.05.2014 categorically stated that in- service contract candidates must be continuing in the organization as on the date of notification i.e., 28.02.2014. He further contend that as the petitioner did not fulfill the condition as required under the memo, the petitioner was not considered for appointment as a Junior Lineman and the name of the petitioner erroneously reflected in the provisional selection list. He would further contend that the petitioner has not secured sufficient marks for the post of Junior Lineman. The entire recruitment process is transparent and denial of employment to the petitioner is only on account of the petitioner not qualifying the requisite condition of being in-service as on the date of notification i.e., 28.02.2014 and as such the petitioner was not entitled to grant weightage marks. The learned Standing Counsel further submit that the appellants have not introduced any new condition through memo, dated 15.05.2014 and in fact, the condition that was there in the notification dated 28.02.2014 was only 6 reiterated. He further contends that the second notification was issued pursuant to the orders of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad wherein it was held that the weightage marks cannot be given to the candidates who are not rendering service on contract basis as on the relevant date. Finally, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that admittedly the petitioner was not in service as on the date of second notification and thus he is not entitled for allocation of weightage marks to be given to in-service candidates and as such interference of this Court into the learned single Judge order is unwarranted and sought to dismiss the writ appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked as Shift Operator at Turputalla Sub-Station from 22.03.2007 to 27.09.2013 on contract basis. While he was working as Shift Operator, on 21.12.2011 the 1st respondent issued a notification to fill up the posts of Shift Operators and Junior Lineman. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Lineman. He secured 70.05 marks and was placed at Serial No.31 in the merit list. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.3753 of 2012, the 1st respondent has issued a second notification on 28.02.2014. In the second notification at para III (VI), it is stated that any disruption or discontinuation of service for a period of 180 days and above for whatever reason as a contract worker shall be considered as if it were fresh commencement from the date of resumption after such discontinuation or disruption. The learned counsel further submits that as on the date of the 7 second notification i.e., 28.02.2014, the petitioner was not in the service for the last 154 days from 27.09.2013. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner worked for more than 6 ½ years as on the date of the first notification issued on 21.12.2011 and as such he is entitled to weightage marks at two marks per year. The learned counsel further contends that the respondents did not furnish any reasons for denying the job to the petitioner. He submits that out of 70 posts of Junior Lineman, appointment orders were issued to 69 candidates but the petitioner was only candidate for whom appointment was denied. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition considering all aspects with reasoned order and as such interference of this Court is not required and sought to dismiss the writ appeal. 10. This Court gave anxious consideration to the submissions made by respective counsel appearing on either side and carefully examined the material available on record. 11. The admitted facts are that the petitioner worked as Shift Operator at Turputalla Sub-Station from 22.03.2007 to 27.09.2013 on a contract basis. While he was working as Shift Operator in the month of December 2011, the 1st respondent had issued a notification. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner was applied for the post of Junior Lineman, appeared for all the examinations conducted by the respondent authorities, secured 70.05 marks and was placed at Sl.No.31 in the provisional selection list of Junior Lineman. The notification, dated 21.12.2011 was challenged by various applicants for 8 denying weightage marks for in-service candidates before this Court. As per the directions of this Court, the respondents issued a second notification dated 28.02.2014. Clause VII of the notification dealt with instructions for the candidates who had already applied in pursuance of the earlier notification, dated 21.12.2011 shall also be eligible for consideration and they need not apply again. 12. It is also an admitted fact that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.3753 of 2012 and batch, the respondents have considered the age issue and the applicants who had reached maximum age as on the date of the first notification has been considered for the subsequent notification, but, the respondents have introduced a pre-condition in the Memo, dated 15.05.2014 for in service candidates stating that they should be in service of the respondents as on the date of the second notification i.e., 28.02.2014 for grant of weightage marks for the service rendered by them on contract basis. In fact, such a condition is imposed after three months from the date of notification, dated 28.02.2014. 13. In fact, the notification, dated 28.02.2014 is consequent to the earlier notification, dated 21.12.2011. It is issued to implement the directions of this Court in W.P.3753 of 2012. Admittedly, the petitioner was in service of the respondents as on the date of the first notification i.e., on 21.12.2011. He left the respondents’ service on 27.09.2013. As on the date of subsequent notification, dated 28.02.2014, the petitioner’s application made pursuant to the first notification, dated 21.12.2011 is still pending and as per the condition 9 of the notification, dated 28.02.2014, he did not require to make fresh application. Considering this factual situation, in our considered view, there is no rationality for the respondents to impose a new condition as per Memo, dated 15.05.2014 insisting that the petitioner should be in continuous service as on the date of second notification. When the petitioner is continued in service as on the date of first notification and he has completed 6 ½ years of service as on the date of first notification, he is entitled for consideration for appointment for the post of Junior Lineman as per the conditions mentioned in the first notification. 14. The Apex Court and this Court has time and again held in catena of judgments that alteration of selection criteria after commencement of the selection process is not permissible and declared it as illegal. The learned single Judge relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others 1 and held that the respondents in the present case undoubtedly tinkered with the rules of the game and the petitioner’s fundamental eligibility criteria was dismantled by superimposing the working instructions/guidelines, dated 15.05.2014 which is not permissible in law. 15. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the settled proposition of law on this aspect that after commencement of the selection process, alteration of the selection criteria in the middle is not permissible under law and admittedly, in the present case as 1 (2013) 4 SCC 540 10 on the date of first notification, dated 21.12.2011, the petitioner has fulfilled all eligibility criteria and as such the petitioner is entitled to seek appointment for the post of Junior Lineman or in any equivalent post. There is no substance in the contention of the respondents that the petitioner should be in continuous service as on the date of the second notification, dated 28.02.2014. 16. For the aforesaid reasons and as the appellants failed to make out any case on facts or law, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge and and accordingly this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 21.02.2025 in W.P.No.24770 of 2014. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND _________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Dated: 15.09.2025 PGR 11 (507) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.860 of 2025 Dt. 15.09.2025 PGR