P a g e | 1 Date of reserved for orders : 01.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 11.09.2026 Date of uploading : 15.09.2026 APHC010436772023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 22649 OF 2023 Between: 1. D RAGHAVENRA RAO, S/o D.V.Ramana Rao, Aged about 42 years, W/as. Shift operator (Contract) 33/1.1KV Sub-station, Govindapalle, Sirivella Section Nandyala Division, Nandyal District. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, Rep by its Managing Director. Tirupati, Tirupati District. 2. The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Co Ltd, Rep by its Chief General Manager (HRD), Tirupati, Tirupati District. 3. The Superintending Engineer Operations, Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Co.Ltd, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. The Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Co.Ltd, Operation Division Nandyal, Nandyal District. 5. State of A.P, rep. by its secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati. P a g e | 2 6. Sri G Sunkaiah, S/o G.Kukkalaiah, Aged about 48 years, W/as. JA/ERO, o/o The Executive Engineer, APSPDCL, Nandyala Division, Nandyal District. 7. Sri Shaik Vali, S/o Hussain Saheb, Aged about 47 years, W/as. ALM, D3 Section, D.E office, APSPDCL, Nandyala Division, Nandyal District. 8. Sri M Mohan, S/o M.Obaiah Aged about 37 years, W/as. ALM, APSPDCL, Koilakuntla Town, Nandyala Division, Nandyal District. 9. Sri M Rama Pullaiah, S/o Deva Raju, Aged about 49 years, W/as. Line Man, D2 Section, D.E office, APSPDCL, Nandyal Nandyal District. 10. Sri M Lakshmi kanth, S/o M.Vali prasad, Aged about 36 years, W/as. ALM, Velugodu Section APSPDCL, Velugodu, Nandyal Division, Nandyal District. 11. Sri R Prasad, S/o Basava Raju, Aged about 49 years, W/as. Line Man, APSPDCL, Midthur,Nandikotkur section, Nandyal District. ...Respondents 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the impugned orders in Lr.No.SE/0/KNL/EE-Tech/P0/ JAO/ Adm/S2 DNo.129/21, Dated.13- 12-2021 of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the cases of the petitioner for appointment of JLM on the ground that the petitioner is not worked as contract labour from 08-06-2006 to 20-10-2006 and in appointing the respondents 6 to 11 though they are not worked as contract labour during the period 08-06-2006 to 20-10- 2006 or not even contract labours as illegal, improper, unjust and arbitrary and contrary to law and violation of Art.14 and16 of constitution of India and further declare that the petitioner is entitle for appointment as Junior Line Man on par with the respondents 6 to 11 notionally w.e.f. the date on which the respondents 6 to 11 are appointed with all consequential benefits including seniority, monetary and promotions with arrears of pay and pass P a g e | 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to direct the respondents 1 to 5 forth with to appoint the petitioner as junior linemen as done in the case the respondents 6 to 11 with all consequential benefits pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to grant Leave to the Respondents No.1 to 4 herein to file counter affidavit in the above writ else the respondents No.1 to 4 company will be put to serious loss and suffering Counsel for the Petitioner: G SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: NAIDU SIVA RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL The Court made the following order: P a g e | 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 22649 OF 2023 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “…….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the impugned orders in Lr.No.SE/0/KNL/EE-Tech/PO/JAO/Adm/S2 DNo.129/21, dt.13.12.2021 of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the cases of the petitioner for appointment of JLM on the ground that the petitioner is not worked as contract labour from 08.06.2006 to 20.10.2006 and in appointing the respondents 6 to 11 though they are not worked as contract labour during the period 08.06.2006 to 20.10.2006 or not even contract labours as illegal, improper, unjust and arbitrary and contrary to law and violation of Art.14 and 16 of constitution of India and further declare that the petitioner is entitle for appointment as Junior Line Man on par with the respondents 6 to 11 notionally w.e.f., the date on which the respondents 6 to 11 are appointed with all consequential benefits including seniority, monetary and promotions with arrears of pay …” 2. The facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition, are briefly set out hereunder: (i) Petitioner, a BC-D category candidate, passed Intermediate (MPC) in 1998 and was engaged as a Contract Shift Operator on 01.12.2000. He subsequently obtained ITI (Electrical) qualification in 2005 and continued as contract labour at Industrial Estate, DIM, Nandyal. Pursuant to the APCPDCL Notification dated 08.06.2006 for recruitment of Junior Linemen, a revised Notification dated 20.10.2006 prescribed the qualifications, local candidature and preference to existing contract P a g e | 5 labour, subject to production of service/EPF records and successful completion of the Pole Climbing Test. Petitioner applied under the contract labour category with all the requisite documents. As he was not initially called for selection, he approached this Court in W.P.No.11460 of 2007 and, pursuant to its orders, was permitted to participate in the selection process. However, his candidature was rejected on 31.08.2007 for non-production of prescribed service certificate, leading to W.P.No.19731 of 2007, which is pending. Petitioner contends that the revised Notification dated 20.10.2006 substituted and continued the original Notification dated 08.06.2006 and that his eligibility ought to be assessed with reference to the original notification. (ii) Pursuant to the 2006 Notification, the Divisional Engineer, Nandyal, prepared a list of contract workers in which petitioner stood at Sl.No.117 with 1,860 working days. Despite his substantially longer service, candidates with lesser service, including respondents 6 to 11, were appointed as Junior Linemen. RTI information obtained by petitioner shows that respondents No.6 to 11 had not worked as contract labour during 08.06.2006 to 20.10.2006, whereas petitioner had substantial contractual service. Respondent No.3, by proceedings dated 24.09.2014, acknowledged the petitioner's 1,860 man-days against 997 man-days of the last BC-D candidate appointed and recommended for appropriate orders in his favour. Nevertheless, his claim was rejected on the ground that he was not working as contract labour during 08.06.2006 to P a g e | 6 20.10.2006. The same ground was reiterated on 13.12.2021 without considering the subsequent RTI information. Petitioner challenged the proceedings in W.P.No.2862 of 2022, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition in light of the subsequently obtained RTI information. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents 6 to 11, though not working as contract labour during the relevant period and/or having substantially lesser service, were appointed as Junior Linemen, whereas the petitioner, who had 1,860 man-days and was working as contract labour as on 08.06.2006, was denied appointment. The impugned proceedings dated 13.12.2021 are therefore arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the respondents failed to extend the prescribed preference to serving contract labour in accordance with the recruitment notification and reservation rules. The petitioner accordingly seeks appropriate relief, including notional appointment from the date of appointment of respondents 6 to 11, with consequential seniority and other service benefits, in terms of the principles laid down in W.P.No.20923 of 2020 dated 11.07.2022 and W.A.No.692 of 2022 dated 10.10.2022. 4. Respondents 2 to 4, in their counter-affidavit, contended that the writ petition is not maintainable under Rule 5(b)(i) of the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977, as petitioner has not specifically pleaded infringement of any fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. Petitioner has not P a g e | 7 produced proof of his educational qualifications and is put to strict proof regarding his ITI qualification and claimed contractual service. The Corporation issued the original Notification dated 08.06.2006 and the revised Notification dated 20.10.2006 for recruitment of Junior Linemen. The selection process was subsequently subjected to various rounds of litigation, culminating in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 25.02.2019, whereby the existing appointments were protected considering their long- standing service and regularisation. Petitioner applied under the existing Contract Labour category and, pursuant to orders in W.P.No.11460 of 2007, was permitted to participate in the Pole Climbing Test. However, he failed to produce the prescribed Service Certificate and was found ineligible for consideration under the revised notification. Under Condition 6(iv) of the revised Notification dated 20.10.2006, preference was to be given to contract labour serving as on the date of notification. Petitioner was not in service as on 20.10.2006 and was therefore ineligible for such preference. Respondents 6 to 11, though having lesser service, were serving on the relevant date and were appointed in accordance with the revised notification. Respondents admit that the petitioner had more working days than respondents 6 to 11, but contend that length of service was immaterial since he was not serving as on 20.10.2006, and in view of the Supreme Court judgment, no fresh appointment can now be made against the notified posts. Accordingly, no fundamental or statutory right of the petitioner has been violated and seek dismissal of the writ petition. P a g e | 8 5. Heard Mr. G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL, appearing for the respondents. 6. As stated above, the contention of the writ petitioner is that he has been working as a Shift Operator since the year 2000. A notification was issued on 08.06.2006 for recruitment to the post of Junior Lineman, which was subsequently revised by a notification dated 20.10.2006. Petitioner, being an existing contract labourer, was not permitted to participate in the selection process and, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.11460 of 2007. Pursuant to the interim order passed in the said writ petition, petitioner was permitted to appear for pole-climbing test conducted on 20.08.2007. However, notwithstanding his participation in the said test, petitioner was not provided employment on the ground that, in terms of Clause 6(iv) of revised notification, he was not on duty as on 20.10.2006, i.e., the date of revised notification. It is apposite to extract herein below the selection criteria prescribed under Clause 6 of the revised notification: 6. Criteria for selection: i) SSLC/SSC/10th Class with ITI qualification in Electrical/Wireman trade or Intermediate Vocational course In Electrical trade is compulsory. (ii) The Operation Circle/District will be the unit of appointment. (iii) Pole Climbing is compulsory. (iv) If conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) above are fulfilled preference will be given to the experience as noted below. a. Presently serving contract labour who are working now for manning of Sub-Stations of A.P. Transco/AP.Discoms with recorded P a g e | 9 evidence through Sub-Station Log Books to be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer. OR Presently serving contract labour for any other works In A.P.Transco/A.P.Discoms with recorded evidence of EPF number in his name to be certifled by the concerned Divisional Engineer. b. If contract labour and fresh candidates apply for the post, the contract labour will be given preference for selection. c. If more than one contract labour apply for the post, the contract labour with earlier Date of Birth will be given preference for selection. d. If there are only fresh candidates who apply for the post, the marks obtained in the qualifying examination will be criteria for selection. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, under the relevant selection criteria, presently serving contract labourers who were engaged for manning the Sub-Stations of A.P. TRANSCO/A.P. DISCOMs, supported by recorded evidence in the Sub-Station log books duly certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer, were eligible for consideration. However, as the petitioner was not on duty as on the date of notification, his case was not considered under the said clause. The specific case of the petitioner is that, as evidenced by Ex.P11, statement showing the particulars of contract workers of the Operation Division, Nandyal, in respect of 2006 notification, his name is shown at Sl.No.117. The said statement discloses that, as on 08.06.2006, petitioner had completed 1,860 mandays as a Shift Operator on various dates specified therein. Nevertheless, his candidature was not considered on the ground that he was not on duty as on 20.10.2006, i.e., the date of revised notification. Despite, petitioner having rendered 1,860 mandays of service, several persons junior to him in the category of contract labourers, who had P a g e | 10 rendered fewer mandays than the petitioner, were appointed to the post of Junior Lineman, while his case was overlooked. According to the information furnished by the respondents vide proceedings dated 05.09.2022, as many as 120 candidates belonging to the contract labour category were appointed pursuant to the said recruitment process. Petitioner contends that unofficial respondents Nos.6 to 11, who either were not working as contract labourers at the relevant time or had rendered fewer mandays than petitioner, were nevertheless appointed, while his candidature was rejected. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the interim directions passed in W.P.No.12662 of 2016 and the representation submitted by the petitioner on 23.12.2020, his case was reconsidered and ultimately rejected on the ground that he did not satisfy the terms and conditions stipulated in the notification dated 08.06.2006 and the revised notification dated 20.10.2006. Respondents also relied upon the review process undertaken pursuant to the judgment in W.P.No.8794 of 2007 and batch, contending that petitioner was not eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman. The same ground was reiterated by the respondents with reference to Guideline 5(h) of the Memo dated 04.05.2012, namely, that the petitioner was not on duty as on the relevant date. 8. Petitioner, however, contends that his absence from duty during the period from 20.08.2006 to 20.10.2006 was on account of illness, as he was suffering from low back pain and was consequently on medical leave. In his representation, petitioner specifically stated that he had been working since 2002 and that his absence during the aforesaid period was due to the said P a g e | 11 medical condition. He also enclosed a medical certificate in support of his claim. It is further contended that the experience certificate produced by petitioner under Ex.P4 clearly establishes that he had rendered service during the relevant period. Therefore, according to the petitioner, mere absence from duty on 20.10.2006, on account of medical leave, ought not to have resulted in the rejection of his candidature, particularly when the records disclose that he had already rendered 1,860 mandays of service and that persons having lesser experience and mandays were subsequently appointed as Junior Linemen. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner also placed reliance on Exs.P10 and P11, drawing the attention of this Court to the fact that the unofficial respondents had not even worked during the relevant period and were either engaged only very recently or engaged after 08.06.2006. Nevertheless, their cases were considered, while the case of the petitioner was not considered. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, as per Condition No.6(iv) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006, preference has to be given to all the contract labourers who were presently serving on contract basis as on 20.10.2006. Petitioner had worked only up to 31.08.2006, and, therefore, he was not entitled to be considered under the revised notification. Though petitioner had specifically referred to his illness in the affidavit and had also annexed the relevant material in support thereof, the same was not rebutted anywhere in the counter-affidavit. The substantial ground urged by the respondents is that the petitioner was absent from duty P a g e | 12 as on 20.10.2006, i.e., the date of the revised notification, and that such absence disentitled him from consideration under Condition No.6(iv)(a) thereof. It is contended that the said circumstance weighed with the authorities in rejecting the petitioner's case. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, as the petitioner was not on duty as on the said date, he was not entitled to be considered under the aforesaid condition, and therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. From Exs.P10 and P11, it is evident that the unofficial respondents had put in fewer mandays than the petitioner as on the relevant date, whereas the petitioner had already put in 1,860 mandays prior to issuance of notification dated 20.10.2006. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not on duty on 20.10.2006 on account of ill-health. Though the petitioner had specifically stated about his illness in the affidavit and had placed the relevant material in support thereof, the said aspect has not been denied or disputed by the respondent authorities in their counter-affidavit. In these circumstances, the mere fact that petitioner was not on duty on 20.10.2006, or during a few days preceding that date, cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that he had voluntarily discontinued his engagement or ceased to be available for consideration under the notification. This is particularly so when candidates who had put in fewer mandays than the petitioner were considered for the purpose of selection. The respondents have not placed any material before this Court to establish that the petitioner had abandoned his engagement, voluntarily discontinued his services, or was otherwise ineligible for P a g e | 13 consideration. The only ground relied upon by the respondents is that petitioner was not on duty as on 20.10.2006. It is also the specific submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has continued to work as a Shift Operator even thereafter. Having regard to the fact that petitioner had rendered 1,860 mandays as a Shift Operator, as evidenced by Ex.P11, and that his absence on the relevant date was on account of ill-health, which has not been disputed by the respondent authorities, such temporary non- availability on the date of the notification cannot, by itself, disentitle him from consideration. The authorities, therefore, ought to have considered petitioner's case on its merits, instead of rejecting the same solely on the ground that he was not on duty on 20.10.2006. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons stated above, the order of rejection dated 13.12.2021 passed by the respondents, rejecting the petitioner's case on the ground that he had not worked as a contract labourer during the period from 08.06.2006 to 20.10.2006, is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to reconsider petitioner's case for appointment in accordance with the applicable rules and the notification dated 20.10.2006, without treating petitioner's non- working during the period from 08.06.2006 to 20.10.2006 as a disqualification under Condition No.6(iv)(a) of the said notification. If petitioner is otherwise eligible and satisfies the other prescribed conditions, his case shall be considered for appointment and appropriate orders shall be passed in P a g e | 14 accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 11.09.2026 SAK Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ P a g e | 15 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 22649 OF 2023 Date: 11.09.2026 SAK