APHC010257722012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 38529/2012 Between: 1. SK.VALI,, S/O. SK.SATTAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. 7-59/1, LINGAMGUNTLA COLONY, KRISHNAVENI NAGAR, NARSARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF, A.P T IMITED REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, 19-13-65/A, KESAVAYANA GUNTA, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF, A.P.LIMITED REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRD), CORPORATE OFFICE, 19-13-65/A, KESAVAYANA GUNTA, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF, A.P.LIMITED REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, BRODIPET, GUNTUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the Petitioner as L.D.C./R.C. or any other suitable posts, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the Petitioner as L.D.Cs/R.C. or any other suitable posts on par with that of similarly situated persons and award all consequential service benefits, in the interest of justice, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 48870 OF 2012 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 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner as L.D.Cs/R.C. or any other suitable posts, pending final disposal of the main W.P., and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S GOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondents in not appointing the petitioner as L.D.C./R.C. or in any other suitable post, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 14.12.2012 and W.P.M.P.No.48870 of 2012 was dismissed. Thereafter, the writ petition was listed on 31.10.2025 and adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner on three occasions. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Page 3 of 5 4. As seen from the averments made in the affidavit, the petitioner completed Graduation in Arts and History and also completed Post Graduation Diploma in Computer Applications in 2000. The petitioner worked as a contract labour from 10.02.1995 to 1998 in A.P. State Electricity Board under the control of Divisional Electrical Engineer (O), Narasaraopet. The petitioner made an application to consider his case for appointment to the post of LDC in pursuance of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. The petitioner attended the interview. However, by order dated 21.01.2002, respondent No.3 rejected the petitioner’s case. The petitioner alleged that though similarly situated persons have not possessed requisite qualification, they were appointed in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. Hence, the writ petition. 5. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents, wherein it was contended, inter-alia that, the petitioner made an application and the same was rejected by a speaking order dated 27.01.2002, stating that the petitioner did not possess the mandatory qualification as per the notification and Board Proceedings. Later, B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 was withdrawn vide S.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.144, dated 25.09.2006. The averments made in the writ affidavit regarding appointment of some other persons who are not qualified, was specifically denied. In the year 2011, a recruitment notification was issued for filling up of Junior Assistant vacancies, duly providing weightage marks to the in service contract workers. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Sri Mathreen, learned counsel representing Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel would submit that though a speaking order was passed on 21.01.2002 vide Ex.P3, the petitioner approached this Court after 10 years. He would also submit that B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 was withdrawn on 25.09.2006. He would also submit that a notification was issued in the year 2011 for filling of Junior Assistant duly providing weightage marks to the in service contract workers. The petitioner could have availed the opportunity. Page 4 of 5 However, as seen from the material, the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity. 7. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, the petitioner worked as a contract labour from 10.02.1995 to 1998. A policy decision was taken by the then Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board to fill 50% of the existing vacancies available as on that day i.e. from the date of issuance of Board Proceedings under B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 with ex-casual labour. The petitioner also made an application. In fact, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23057 of 1999 and the same was disposed of. Later, by a speaking order vide Lr.No.SE/0/GNT/Adm./C3/D.No.84/2002, dated 21.01.2002 (Ex.P3), the case of the petitioner was negatived on two grounds i.e. (i) the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification i.e. Type Writing Lower Grade in English, for appointment to the post of L.D.C. and (ii) the petitioner was not on the rolls on 18.05.1997. However, the petitioner did not challenge the said proceedings and approached this Court to direct the respondents to consider his case, after 10 years. 8. Since a speaking order was passed by respondent No.3 on 21.01.2002, and the same became final, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to the dismissed. 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 20.12.2025 TVN 220 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.38529 OF 2012 Date: 20.12.2025 TVN