A valid service certificate countersigned by officials cannot be disregarded due to the contractor's failure to maintain records; the authority must substantiate rejection based on genuine evidence.

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-a-side the letter No.CGM(HRD)/GM(IR&L)/AS(L)/PO-H3/WP 15095 of 2005-08 dt.28.02.2008 issued by the 2^nd respondent. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as LDC on par with his colleagues who were appointed in terms of Notification dated 24.04.2001, 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 in the office of the 3rd respondent from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.1998. The 3^rd respondent 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 officials. 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.

(b) After conducting the interviews, the respondents have 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 results of interview held as “NIL”

(c) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5746 of 2003 before this court. While adjudicating this case along with batch of cases, the Hon’ble Court 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".

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed by an order dated 28.10.2004 directing the respondents to consider petitioner’s case in the light of the aforesaid observations for their absorption pursuant to the orders in BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Despite such direction given by this Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated 31.12.2004 rejecting the petitioner’s case.

(d) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again filed W.P.No.15095 of 2005, challenging the letter, dated 31.12.2004. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated 03.01.2007 disposed of the above Writ Petition, giving liberty to