ASHOK BHAN - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the final order and judgment dated 17th July, 1999 in writ petition no. 16523 of 1993 by a full bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein the High Court has held that the respondent -writ petitioner was eligible to be considered for the post of LDC/ Revenue Cashier and a direction has been given to the appellant to appoint the respondent in one of the posts of LDC/ Revenue Cashier within a period of one month from the date' of receipt of the copy of the order impugned therein.
(2.) APPELLANT, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") is the successor of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short "the Board"). The Board entered into an agreement with the workers union for absorption of excasual labourers against regular vacant posts arising from time to time for operation and maintenance and construction establishments posts. Accordingly, the Board framed a scheme and issued the same by Office Memo No.OSD(P)DA.I/A3/ 1138/85-1 dated 26.8.1985. Casual labourers were divided into two categories. In the first category the qualification and the minimum number of days for making them eligible for appointments were notified as under: JUDGEMENT_356_JT4_2003Html1.htm The second category was of those excasual labourers who were graduates or possessing equivalent or higher qualifications. They were to be absorbed against the vacant LDC/Revenue Cashier/Typists/ Steno-Typist posts in the Operation Circle irrespective of the number of day's work put in by them. In the first category the division was taken as a unit for considering the eligible and suitable ex-casual labourers and the Divisional Engineer was made the appointing authority. In respect of the second category the circle was taken as a unit for considering the eligible ex-casual labourers and the Superintending Engineer was named as the appointing authority. Division Engineer and the Superintending Engineer in their respective divisions/circles were directed to scrutinize and verify the lists of eligible candidate amongst the ex-casual labourers and satisfy themselves personally regarding the number of days worked and the qualification possessed by each candidate. The list prepared of such casual labourers was required to be displayed on the notice board and the final list was to be prepared after scrutinizing the representations, if any, received in this regard. Thereafter, the final list was to be forwarded to the board in the proforma appended for approval. Appointment orders were to be issued after taking approval from the board.
(3.) THE sole respondent, the ex-casual labourer, had worked with the Board on daily wage basis for a period of 47 days from 1.5.1976 to 30.6.1976. He was not a graduate at the time when he had worked as a casual labourer with the board in the year 1976. He did his graduation in the year 1981-82. Since he was not a graduate at the time when he had worked as a casual labourer and he had also not intimated to the board about his graduation, his name was considered in the first category and included in the comprehensive list prepared in the concerned division. His name was not included in the final list as it was opined that the incumbent was a 'read and write' candidate and had not put in 100 days of work making him eligible for a 'read and write1 candidate. The concerned Divisional Engineer submitted the final list prepared by him to the Superintending Engineer who in turn submitted the same to the board. The final list was got published in the newspaper (Telgu daily). It was indicated that in case of any omission or discrimination in the list of excasual labourers published, the concerned may contact the Divisional Engineer with supporting evidence within 10 days. The concerned Divisional/ Superintending Engineers were instructed to scrutinise the representations with reference to the claims of the application, if any, received after the publication of the lists and furnish the dates of the claim with their remarks to the board. In case no representation was received the Superintending/Divisional Engineers were required to intimate the same to the board within 15 days after the stipulated period for receipt of the representations to enable to finalise the lists of eligible ex-casual labourers. No representation was received from the respondent.;