Eligibility criteria for recruitment cannot be altered mid-process; the petitioner was entitled to appointment based on original notification terms.

ORDER :

HARINATH.N, J.

1. The petitioner is challenging the respondents' inaction in issuing the orders of appointment, though the petitioner's name was shown at S.No.31 in the provisional selection list of Junior Lineman, Eluru Circle, West Godavari District. The petitioner is seeking a consequential direction to the second respondent to issue orders of appointment as per the provisional selection list.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner worked as Shift Operator at Turputalla Sub-station from 22.03.2007 to 27.09.2013 on a contract basis, and 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. It is submitted that the petitioner secured 70.05 marks and was placed at S.No.31 in the order of merit. The 1st respondent issued a second notification in pursuance of the directions of this Court in WP.No.3753 of 2012.

3. As per the second notification 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.

4. The second notification was issued on 28.02.2014, and as of the date of said notification, the petitioner was not in the respondent's service for the last 154 days from 27.09.2013. The petitioner worked for more than six and a half years, and as such, he is entitled to weightage marks at two marks per year.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not assigned any reasons for denying the job to the petitioner. Out of the 70 posts of Junior Lineman, appointment orders were issued to 69 candidates, and the petitioner was the only candidate for whom the appointment orders were denied.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to issue orders of appointment to the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that the respondents issued the second notification in the year 2014 duly extending the weightage marks for candidates who were working on a contract basis. The respondents ought to have extended the weightage marks towards the service rendered by the petitioner on a contract basis.

7. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner's case was not considered as he was not in service from 28.09.2013 onwards. It is also submitted that the respondents are made it very clear by issuing a memo No.HRD/MPS/MPP/F.No.149/12/D.No.326/14, 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.

8. It is submitted that as the petitioner did not fulfil the condition as required under the memo referred to above, the petitioner was not considered for appointment as a Junior Lineman. It is stated in the counter that the name of the petitioner was erroneously reflected in the provisional selection list. It is also stated that the applicants must scrupulously follow the conditions mentioned in the notification dated 28.02.2014.

9. It is submitted that the petitioner does not entitle himself to a job as he passed the test conducted by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner, to become eligible for consideration, should comply with the condition as mentioned in the memo dated 15.05.2014, which mandates the in-service contract candidates to continue in the organization as on the date of the second notification, i.e., 28.02.2014. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner has not secured sufficient marks for the post of Junior Lineman. It is also submitted that the entire recruitment process is transparent, and denial of employment to the petitioner is only on account of the petitioner not qua