ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned counsel representing Padma, counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Ravindranath, the learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings vide Letter. No. SE.O.SK.L. Adm. A.1.D.No. 509/2001 dated 10-4-2001.
3. The impugned order dated 10-4-2001 reads as follows:
“In continuation of this office letter No. under reference 3rd cited, you are informed as follows:
In obedience of the Hon’ble Court orders issued in W.A.No. 61/2001 on 28-2-2001 your case has been reconsidered for appointment to the post of L.D. Clerk in the 50% vacancies existing as on 18-5-97 in terms of B.P.Ms.No. 36, dated 18-5-1997. After verification of all the records produced by you at the time of personal hearing on 6-4-2001 you are informed that:
(i) you are not a Contract Labour and yourself you are a contractor (as per the service certificate produced by you).
In view of the above your case cannot be considered for appointment in the department i.e., A.P. TRANSCO/ APEPDCL.
The communication in this letter shall be deemed that the directions of the Hon’ble court issued in W-A.No. 61/ 2001 in W.P.No. 20235/99 are implemented in its entirety”.
4. As can be seen from the historical background of the case, the writ petitioner had approached this court at least more than once and in spite of repeated orders, his case is not being considered for appointment as requested by him on some ground or the other. The facts in brief are as follows:
It is stated that the writ petitioner worked as Contract Labour in the respondents-Corporation under the control of DE. MRT. Division, Srikakulam for the last 8 years. It is also stated that the Respondents-Corporation had published a notification and called for interviews for filling up the posts other than who are working in the Corporation and the writ petitioner filed W.P.No. 2808/98 which was disposed of at the stage of admission directing the Respondents-Corporation to consider and call him for interview and in pursuance of the said direction the petitioner had attended for the interview and has been continuing in service. It is also stated that as per B.P.Ms.No. 36, dated 18-5-1997, only three categories of persons were sought to be absorbed i.e., electrical workers, casual labourers and contract labourers. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings in the name of the petitioner vide letter No. SE. O. CKL. Adm. 1.F.71 D.No. 27-11-98 dated 9-10-1998 wherein the petitioner’s absorption was rejected by giving reason “the respondent herein was not provided by a licensed contractor whose licence must be issued by a competent authority as provided under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, r/w. A.P. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971 and questioning the said orders the petitioner filed W.P.No. 32816/98 and while disposing of the said Writ Petition on 19-1-1998 it was stated that though the petitioner had not worked as a licensed contractor he is also entitled to be considered for absorption if other conditions are fulfilled. Subsequent thereto, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 1st respondent in proceedings letter No. SE. SKL. Adm. A.I.D.No. 1865/99, dated 6-9-1999 wherein the 2nd respondent herein categorically stated that the petitioner possessed qualification though engaged by an unlicensed contractor. But the petitioner’s absorption was rejected by giving reasons “As per the SSC certificate, graduation and post graduation and other certificates the petitioner’s name appeared as G. Bala and father’s name appeared as G. Krishna Rao. We entered into an agreement with G. Balaji s/o. G.V. Krishna Rao but not Gollapalli Bala s/o. G. Krishna Rao. In view of the above, it is construed that the chit agreement was entered with Sri G. Balaji and the candidate attended to the interview held on 24-3-98 was Sri Gollapalli Bala are different individuals”. Against the said proceedings, the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.No. 20235/99 and the petitioner also produced an affidavit certified by the Notary and attested by a Gazetted Officer clarifying the petitioner’s name and the 2nd respondent accepting clarification of the name of the petitioner filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No. 20235/9 and the said Writ Petition was allowed on 17-8-2000 wherein it was specifically held as follows:
“under these circumstances, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner for absorption as L.D.C. in terms of B.P.Ms.No. 36 without reference to the name and also the contention that he was not a contract labour. If the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification, it is obvious that the Board should grant him appropriate relief. This exercise shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”
The 1st respondent preferred W.A. No. 61/2001 on the ground that petitioner is a Contractor and the Writ Appeal was disposed of observing as follows:
“According to Mr. S. Ravindranath, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, that such statements had been made having regard to the confusion that the Management had with regard to the name of the person concerned as stated in the judgment under appeal. The learned counsel stated that there are some documents in possession of the appellants to show that the writ petitioner/respondent was a contractor. We, therefore, in modification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge direct that the case of the writ petitioner/respondent for absorption may be considered in the light of the aforementioned B.P.Ms.No. 36 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. Such consideration may be made by the Superintending Engineer, who is admittedly the competent authority, at an early date and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of communication of this order.
The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.”
It is stated that the writ petitioner made a representation dated 16-3-2001 stating all the facts and requesting that his case may be considered for absorption as per B.P:Ms.No. 36 and also placed reliance on memo No. AS.Dy. G.M.IR.AS.TR.PO. II. A1-98-99 by the Assistant Secretary wherein it Was stated as follows:
“The attention of the Superintending engineer, Operation Circle, Srikakulam is requested to consider the case of contract labourer in terms of memo dt. 10-5-99 r/w memo dt. 11-8-99 and other guidelines issued in the matter from time to time. The case of the contractor if he himself is a contract labourer may also be considered if he fulfills the conditions.”
As required the petitioner had attended with all the necessary certificates and after verification the impugned proceedings dated 10-4-2001 had been issued, which had been already referred to supra.
5. A counter-affidavit is filed narrating the details relating to B.P.Ms.No. 36 and strongly placing reliance on the Judgment in W.A.No. 61/2001. It is also specifically stated that in obedience of the orders issued in W.A.No. 61/2001, the petitioner was called for hearing on 6-4-2001 and on verification of the service certificate produced by the petitioner on 6-4-2001 it was observed that he himself is a Contractor as the service certificate is not signed by any Contractor and the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation) Srikakulam had certified that the work of testing of single phase meters was awarded to the petitioner only vide Chit Agreement. No. 1/96-97, dated 2-1-1997 and hence speaking orders were issued accordingly. It is also specifically stated that in the Memos dated 10-5-1999 and 11-8-1999 it is stated that to consider the cases of the contract labour though they are engaged by an unlicensed contractor if the number of contract labour supplied by an unlicensed, contractor for executing any work covered by chit Agreement falls below five workmen who discharge piece rate work, will not have the status of the contract labour. The contract labour working as on 18-5-1997 are only eligible for consideration. As the work entrusted to the petitioner vide Chit Agreement No. 1/96-97 was completed as on 27-1-1997 and the petitioner himself is a contractor he did not fulfill the eligibility conditions for appointment in the Department in 50% vacancies existing as on 18-5-1997 and hence the impugned order had been issued after taking into consideration all the aspects.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the material available on record.
7. Apart from the respective pleadings of the parties, elaborate arguments had been advanced by both the counsel. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the orders passed in the prior Writ Petitions are taken into consideration, it is clear that some objection or other is being taken and at every stage there is development and new case is being invented for rejecting the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel also had pointed out even in the present counter affidavit, an attempt is made to see that there will be yet another round of litigation even if certain positive directions are given by this court. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to all the prior proceedings and also the orders passed in the different Writ Petitions specified supra and the Writ Appeal and had contended that it is unfortunate that the petitioner is being driven to the court repeatedly by the respondents and hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. The learned counsel in the alternative had contended that even otherwise, in view of the Memo referred to supra issued by the Assistant Secretary, even if the stand of the other side has to be accepted, his case shall be considered for absorption and the impugned order of rejection is totally unsustainable.
8. Sri S. Ravindranath, the learned counsel representing the respondents had contended that the writ petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria and in pursuance of the Judgment in the Writ Appeal, the case of the petitioner had been considered and reasons had been recorded in the impugned order why he is not entitled to the relief prayed for. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the Judgment in W.P.No. 5064/99 and Batch and had contended that the writ petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria of B.P.Ms.No. 36. It was also strenuously contended that the writ of mandamus of this nature cannot be issued since virtually the writ petitioner is resorting to the filing of several Writ Petitions seeking the same relief for consideration and such repeated Writ Petitions seeking for the same relief cannot be sustained. Strong reliance was placed on R. Mallesu v. Regional Manager, APSRTC, in this regard.
9. Heard both the counsel and also perused the material available on record.
10. The impugned order dated 10-4-2001 specifically says that after verification of all the records produced by the petitioner at the time of personal hearing on 6-4-2001 he was informed that he is not a contract labourer and he is a contractor as per the service certificate produced by him and hence his case cannot be considered for appointment in the Department. It is also pertinent to note that in the proceeding dated 6-9-1999 from the Superintending Engineer (Operation Circle), A.P. TRANSCO, Srikakulam to the petitioner it had been stated as follows:
“In continuation of the letter cited, it is informed that pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 32896/98, dt. 19-1-99 your case has been further examined for considering for appointment to the following posts with reference to qualifications possessed by you though you were engaged by an unlicensed contractor.
(i) JLM (50%) already filled up as informed in the letter cited).
(ii) Typist
(iii) L.D. Clerk
(iv) Sub-Engineer.
2. On verification of the certificates produced by you at the time of interview held on 24-3-98, the following discrepancies are observed:
As per the SSC certificate, Graduation and post graduation and other certificates the name appeared as G. Bala and father’s name appeared as Krishna Rao.
The Chit Agreement No. 1/96-97 dt. 2-1-97 was entered with Sri G. Balaji s/o. Sri G. Krishna Rao.
In view of the above, it is construed that the chit agreement was entered with Sri G. Balaji and the candidate attended to the interview held on 24-3-98 was Sri Gollapalli Bala are different individuals.
Hence your case cannot be considered for appointment in APTRANSCO.”
In the letter dated 9-10-1998 of the Superintending Engineer, it was stated as follows:
“In the reference 1st cited, the Honourable High Court passed orders “to consider the cases of petitioners as per B.P.Ms.No. 36, dated 18-5-1997”.
(2) In pursuance of the above orders of the High Court, you have been interviewed by the selection committee on 24-3-98 along with other petitioners.
(3) You are not provided by a licenced contractor whose license must be issued by competent authority as provided in Section 12 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 read with A.P. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971.
(4) In view of the above, your case for appointment in A.P.S.E. Board is rejected as you have not fulfilled the above conditions/not covered under the categories mentioned therein.
(5) For the reasons mentioned above, the communication in this letter shall be deemed that your case has been considered in accordance with the
orders of the High Court and that orders are implemented in its entirety”.
In W.P.No. 32896 of 1998, the following order was passed:
“The writ affidavit filed by the petitioners herein shows that all the petitioners worked as ex-causal labourers continuously for a period of five years to the satisfaction of the higher authorities without any remarks with the respondent Board. While so, the second respondent herein for want of vacancies published a notification and called for interviews from the eligible and qualified candidates. The case of the petitioners was not considered by the respondent Board on the ground that they did not work with the licensed contractor. Under these circumstances the petitioners were constrained to file the present Writ Petition Similar type of Writ Petition came before a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 1549/98 in which the learned Single Judge held that though the petitioners therein did not work with the licensed contractor, they are entitled to be considered for the appointment if the other conditions are satisfied. Taking the similar view, this court directs the respondents herein not to insist upon the fact that the petitioners herein did not work with the licensed contractor. They are to be interviewed and appointed in the suitable posts if the other conditions are satisfied. With this direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of, No costs.”
Apart from these, the 1st respondent Corporation had issued a memo No. AS.Dy.GM.IR.AS.TR.PC.II.Al-87/99 through its Assistant Secretary wherein it was stated as follows:
“The attention of the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Srikakulam is invited to the reference 7th cited and he is requested to consider the case of the contract labour in terms of memo dt. 10-5-99 read with memo dt. 11-8-99 and other guidelines issued in the mater from time to time. The cases of the contractor if himself a contract labour may also be considered if he fulfills other conditions.”
No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on this Memo for making an alternative submission that even if the contention of the other side and the ground of rejection in the impugned order have to be accepted, even then, the writ petitioner is entitled for consideration. No doubt, the learned Standing Counsel had disputed the binding nature of the said Memo.
11. It is no doubt true that in W.A. No. 61/2001, a direction was issued that the case of the writ petitioner for absorption may be considered in the light of the aforementioned B.P.Ms.No. 36 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and such consideration may be made by the Superintending Engineer, who is admittedly the competent authority, at an early date and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of communication of the order. The learned Standing Counsel, on the strength of this Judgment in W.A. No. 61/2001 had vehemently contended that inasmuch as the eligibility criteria in B.P.Ms.No. 36 are not satisfied, the impugned rejection order is sustainable in law. As can be seen from the several proceedings, the respondents have been taking inconsistent stands and in fact have been inventing some ground or other for the purpose of passing an order of rejection whenever a direction is issued by this court to consider the case of the writ petitioner. It was also pointed out that even in the counter affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition also certain grounds relating to the eligibility, again had been raised only with a view to make an order of rejection even in future. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot throw the blame on the writ petitioner for approaching this court repeatedly and here is an unfortunate person who has been fighting litigation after litigation as against the respondents and in spite of several directions, the competent authority is making an order virtually rejecting the case of the petitioner on some ground or the other. I am of the considered opinion that the respondents having taken a particular stand in the earlier Writ Petitions cannot now further improve and take a different stand and in that view of the matter, as far as these fresh grounds are concerned, in a way the respondents are estopped from contending that their earlier stand in this regard is not correct and hence in view of the present stand taken by them, there is no necessity or need to consider the case of the writ petitioner. This attitude on the part of the respondents cannot be said to be a justifiable one and hence in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the present impugned order of rejection is not sustainable.
12. Strong reliance was placed on the decision referred (1) supra for the proposition that there cannot be repeated Writ Petitions for a case being considered. No doubt, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court had arrived at a conclusion that when the petitioner failed to produce evidence to show that he was a displaced employee and the case of other petitioners had been rejected on the ground that required number of cleaners were also absorbed and the scheme of absorption itself came to an end in 1987, the decision of the Committee does not suffer from any legal infirmity and hence the petitioners cannot go on agitating the same issue again and again and in such a fact situation, the Writ Petition was dismissed as frivolous. But here is a case where as disclosed from the material available on record, in spite of the directions of this court to consider the case of the writ petitioner, the respondents have been taking different stands and inconsistent stands also, ultimately driving the writ petitioner to this court repeatedly. I am of the considered opinion that the respondents are not expected to take such inconsistent stands as can be revealed from their own proceedings.
13. Where a direction is issued by the court to consider the case of the petitioner, “consideration” means “due consideration”. The concerned competent authorities are expected to take all the aspects into consideration and take a decision and such order or directions should not be taken in a casual manner and it should not be an empty formality or a routine ritual. As can be seen in several cases, while reporting compliances of such directions, formal orders are being passed only with a view to drive the parties to yet another round of litigation. Normally, such a practice on the part of the respective competent authorities should be deprecated. I am conscious of the fact that there are several cases where the cases of the parties cannot be considered because of the non-eligibility or non-satisfaction of the conditions, qualifications or other requirements. But however, it is pertinent to note that the competent authorities dealing with such matters in public administration are expected to act with reason and not with a view to negative the relief. It is really unfortunate that in several of the matters, we do come across the orders being passed by the competent authorities which are really more or less as a simple answer to the directions issued. As can be seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, the consideration and the orders passed relating to the petitioner in this case also appear to be more or less of the same nature and I am of the considered opinion, this is wholly unjustified. Hence, always, consideration of a case, should prima facie answer the test of reasonableness and if it is wholly unsustainable order, it can be said that there is no due consideration of the case at all. Hence in the peculiar facts and circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the writ petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made above without reference to the impugned proceedings dated 10-4-2001 and the 2nd respondent shall complete this exercise of consideration taking all the facts and circumstances and also the observations of this court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
14. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to posts.