The authenticity of service certificates is crucial for eligibility in recruitment; defects in documentation can justify rejection of 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-a-side the letter No.CGM(HRD)/GM(IR)/AS(L)/PO-H3/WP 7909/05-08 dt. 18.02.2008 issued by the 2^nd respondent. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as LDC on par with other candidates appointed pursuant to the 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 3^rd respondent from 01.05.1995 to 10.05.2001. 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 3rd 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 or any other initial recruitment cadre, 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 2nd respondent vide notification dated 30.01.2003 declared the results of interview as “NIL”

(c) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P. No.3040 of 2003 before this court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 28.02.2004 directing the respondents to consider petitioner’s case in the light of observations made in W.P.No.6546 of 2003 and batch for his absorption, pursuant to BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Despite such direction given by this Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated 08.01.2005 rejecting the petitioner’s case on the ground of agreements indicated in the service certificate were commenced and completed before 18.05.1997 or after 18.05.1997, as such the petitioner cannot be treated as on rolls as on 18.05.1997.

(d) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again filed W.P.No.7909 of 2005, challenging the letter, dated 08.01.2005. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated 13.03.2006 set aside the said letter, dated 08.01.2005 and directed the respondents to conduct enquiry and during the enquiry, if it is found that the petitioner to be on the rolls as on 18.05.1997, then the petitioner’s case shall be considered in future vacancies as and when arise, subject to completion of other conditions. Again, letter dated 26.08.2006 was issued by the 2nd respondent, rejecting the petitioner’