( 1 ) THOUGH the arguments are common, the entire batch of 65 cases are divided into two categories. In one batch of writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the action of the respondents in not considering the revised options submitted by them as wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms of the tripartite agreements and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to consider the revised options of the petitioners and permit them to be in Andhra Pradesh Northern Power distribution Company Limited (APNPDCL ).

( 2 ) SOME of the writ petitions are filed to declare the action of the respondents in allotting them to different distribution companies ignoring the revised options pursuant to the press statement said to have been issued by the Additional Secretary- cum-Convener of High Level Committee published in Eenadu, Telugu Daily News paper dated 11-7-2002 as illegal and contrary to the Tripartite agreements and violative of articles 14,16, and 21 of the Constitution of india and to direct the respondents to consider the revised option exercised by them for their allotment in respect of the distribution companies as per the revised option.

( 3 ) THE prayer in some of the writ petitions is to declare the action of the respondents in preparing the individual seniority list company wise instead of following the combined seniority list prepared by erstwhile APSEB, which is affecting the seniority of the employees as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to allot them to APNPDCL where the juniors of petitioners are getting promotions earlier to them.

( 4 ) THUS the W. P. Nos. 500 of 2002,14801 of 2002, 16439 of 2002,16441 of 2002, 16653 of 2002, 15676 of 2002, 17154 of 2002, 18008 of 2002,17730 of 2002,19647 of 2002,19341 of 2002, 20963 of 2002,21312 of 2002, 20736 of 2002, 21547 of 2002, 2317 of 2003 and 7869 of 2003 have been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the applications filed by the petitioners to reconsider their options who have been allotted to the respective companies as per their first option exercised in pursuance of the option letter dated 27-4-2002.

( 5 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 502 of 2003 was allotted to APGENCO which was his 6th preference. His representation for reconsideration of his option to APNPDCL was rejected. The petitioners in w. P. No. 17146 of 2002 were also allotted to apgenco, which is their 6th preference. They have made an application for revised allotment, but, their revised option was not accepted. The cases of the petitioners in w. P. 17146 of 2002 and W. P. No. 502 of 2003 were not considered on the ground that there is no post available for them in the A. P. TRANSCO or DISTCOMs.

( 6 ) THE other batch of Writ Petitions are filed to declare the action of the official respondents in effecting the promotions in certain categories ignoring their seniority under the combined seniority list of erstwhile apseb as illegal and contrary to the tripartite agreements and Rule 7 of A. P. Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) rules 1999 and to direct the official respondents to promote them based on the combined seniority list of erstwhile APSEB.

( 7 ) HEARD the arguments of Mr. Sharat Kumar and Mr. K. Vasudeva reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. G, Vidya Sagar and Smt. K. Shesha Rajyam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

( 8 ) THE case of the petitioners is that andhra Pradesh Government has brought the Electricity Reforms Act, 1998. The sole object of the underlying reforms is to provide for the constitution of Electricity Regulatory commission, restructuring of the Electricity industry, Rationalization of generations, transmission, Distribution and supply of electricity avenues for participation of private sectors in the Electricity Industry and generally for taking measures conducive to the development and management of electricity industry