IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that employment decisions must adhere to established rules and that claims of entitlement must be substantiated with evidence.

ORDER :

(V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.) :

1. This writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the following relief: -

“For the reasons set-out in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of 3rd respondent in proceedings No. SE/O/NLR/Adm U2/C4/D.No.241/2001, dated 18-4-2001, refusing to consider case of the petitioner for appointment to the posts of Sub Engineer on the ground that the 50% of the vacancies were already filled up as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary to the principles of natural justice, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and grant all consequential benefits by holding that the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the posts of Sub Engineer; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

In the writ petition, it is averred that under the respondents, he underwent apprenticeship training for a period of 1 year between 25.04.1994 and 24.04.1995 as electrical and electronics engineer and successfully completed the training. It is further mentioned that the writ petitioner worked as a contract labour for 7 years in Guduru division.

2. Earlier he filed W.P.No.1064 of 2000 whereunder he sought a direction to respondents to consider his candidature for appointment to the posts of Sub-Engineer on the ground that he had undergone apprenticeship training in the respondents-corporation. By an order dated 28.04.2000, a learned Judge of this court directed the respondents-corporation that whenever the corporation was filling up the vacancies of the posts of Sub- Engineers, preference should be given to the writ petitioner, as he worked as apprentice in the respondents-corporation, over the untrained candidates seeking employment to the posts which he is eligible.

3. Thereafter, the respondents-corporation issued the impugned proceedings in SE/O/NLR/Adm U2/C4/D.No.241/2001 dated 18.04.2001. The order reads as below: -

Lr.No. SE/O/NLR/Adm U2/C4/D.No.241/2001 dated 18.04.2001

Sir,

Sub: - A.P.SPDCL – Nellore - Industrial Relations - Filling up of 50% Vacancies in the initial recruitment caders of LDCs/Typist/Sub-Engineers existing as on 18-5-97 - Reg.

Ref: - 1.Memo.No.SE/O/NLR/Am C2/D.??. 235/98, dt.21- 05-98

2. Memo. No. Addl.Secretary/DIR/AS/IR/PO 2/AI/1833/98 dt.10-5-99.

3. Hon’ble High Court Judgement, dt. 28-4-2000 in W.P. No.1064/2000.

In continuation to the letter Ist cited and in light of the instructions of A.P.TRANSCO in reference IInd cited, and in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the reference IIIrd cited your case has been considered irrespective of the fact that you were engaged by an un-licensed contractor.

The 50% Vacancies existing as on 18-5-97 were filled up with eligible and selected candidates duly following the Rule of Reservation. Your turn has not come up for consideration. In view of the above your case for the appointment in A.P. TRANSCO/A.P.SPDCL could not be considered. For the reasons mentioned above, the communication in this letter shall be deemed that your case has been considered in accordance with the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and that orders were implemented in its entirety.

Yours faithfully,

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

OPERATION : : NELLORE.

4. By the above proceedings, it is seen that the candidature of the writ petitioner was considered for the post of Sub-Engineer and was finally he was not given appointment for the reasons mentioned in the proceedings. In the present writ petition, the said proceedings is challenged. Before considering this challenge, it is to be noticed that subsequent to the issuance of the said proceedings, this writ petitioner filed C.C.No.822 of 2001 before this court