The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application for appointment as LDC due to lack of genuine service certificates, emphasizing the need for substantiated documentation in such claims.

ORDER :

Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“...to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting petitioner's case for being appointed as LDC as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the letter No.CGM(HRD)/GM(IR&L)/AS-(L)/PO-H3/WP No. 7038 of 2005-08 dt.18.02.2008 issued by the 2^ndrespondent. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as LDC duly granting all other consequential benefits.”

2. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Telangana, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) The petitioner worked as a Contract Labour under the 3rd respondent from 01.06.1996 to 30.06.1999 vide agreement No.27, 50 and 57/95-96, 13, 49/96-97, 70/95-98 and check measured on 29.09.1997. BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 was issued by the erstwhile APSEB, as a consequence of settlement entered into between the Trade Unions and Management, mandates that 50% posts of initial recruitment cadre should be filled in considering the Ex-Casual labour, Contract Labour and VEWs. The 3^rdrespondent issued Notification, dated 24.04.2001, calling upon from the eligible candidates to apply for the post of initial recruitment cadre as per BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. As the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible for being appointed as LDC, he had submitted an application along with all the certificates including the service certificate issued by the Contractor and counter signed by the departmental official.

(b) Thereafter, all the applications and certificates produced by the candidates were scrutinized by the officials of the 1^st respondent and thereafter petitioner’s name was included in the list of qualified and eligible candidates for selection and the same was placed on the Notice Board. After conducting the interviews, the respondents have once again referred the matter to Vigilance Authorities for verification of service certificates produced by the selected candidates. Having verified, the Vigilance Authorities reported that, the service certificate produced by the petitioner is correct and genuine. After the said report, the respondents issued a Notification published in the Vaartha Telugu daily, dated 13.01.2003, holding that there were no successful candidates and the result of interview held as "NIL". Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5158 of 2003. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 28.10.2004 along with batch and this observed as follows:

"It is for the respondent board to verify the certificates produced by the petitioners with reference to the agreements awarded to the contractor, which were verified and counter signed by the official respondents. Therefore, the action of the respondents in simply rejecting the cases of the petitioners based on the Vigilance Inspector's report on the ground that the contract has not produced the aforesaid registers is unreasonable and unsustainable. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to verify the certificates issued by the contractor and counter signed by the officials of the respondents with reference to the agreements under which particular contract labours are engaged as on 18.05.1997 and consider their cases for appointment in accordance with BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997".

(c) Despite such clear and categorical direction given by this Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated 08.01.2005 holding that the petitioner