ORDER : The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-R bearing No.BESCOM/BC25/41/2019-20/1178 dated 22.11.2019, rejection of petitioners request to absorb them as Probationary Mazdoors with consequential benefits and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider petitioners cases for absorbtion as Probationary Mazdoors on par with other Bill Distribution Boys. 2. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Gangmen/Bill Distribution Boys in the Anekal and Chandapura Sub Divisions of the respondent-BESCOM in the year 2000. In the year 2004, as per Annexure-A, settlement was arrived at under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Karnataka Industrial Disputes Rule between the KPTCL/BESCOM/GESCOM/HESCOM/MESCOM represented by its General Manager (Admn & HRD) and KPTCL Employees Union to convert the Gangmen who were working continuously and completed six years of continuous service as on 01-04-2003 as Probationary Mazdoors in a phased manner and to grant certain other facilities. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the condition of six years of continuous service as on 01-04-2003 is subsequently relaxed. It is the case of the petitioners that subsequently under resolution dated 20.09.2016, further it was resolved to convert 315 Nos. Bill Delivery Boys as “Probationary Mazdoors”. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners’ names were left out while absorbing the other Probationary Mazdoors into the respondent-BESCOM in pursuance to settlement dated 03.06.2004 as well as subsequent resolution dated 20.09.2016. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.41218-41222/2018. This Court by order dated 14.11.2019 disposed of the writ petitions, as the respondent-BESCOM undertook to consider the representations of the petitioners. Subsequently, the respondent-BESCOM issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure-R dated 22.11.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the main reason assigned for rejection of the petitioners’ claim under impugned endorsement is that the petitioners have failed to produce required documents such as date of birth, caste certificate and education qualification within the time limit and the delay is attributed to the petitioners. But the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the concerned Executive Engineer under Annexure-C dated 30.10.2009 had forwarded the details of the petitioners to the Chief General Manager and he submits that the reason assigned by the respondents in the endorsement dated 22.11.2019 is wholly unreasonable. But the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the concerned Executive Engineer under Annexure-C dated 30.10.2009 had forwarded the details of the petitioners to the Chief General Manager and he submits that the reason assigned by the respondents in the endorsement dated 22.11.2019 is wholly unreasonable. Further, learned counsel submits that the petitioners have also furnished all the required documents and the respondents failed to examine the same in its proper perspective. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that immediately after resolution dated 20.09.2016, as the petitioners’ names were not found in the list of persons to be absorbed as Probationary Mazdoors, petitioners made representations at Annexures-H and J dated 26.11.2016. But the said representations were also not considered by the respondent-BESCOM. Thus, he prays that the endorsement at Annexure-R requires to be quashed with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the representations/cases of the petitioners. 3. Per contra, Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as there was no details with regard to the petitioners for consideration of their cases for absorbtion as Probationary Mazdoors, the petitioners’ cases were not considered by the Committee appointed for that purpose. Since the petitioners’ details with regard to submission of particulars was forwarded belatedly after finalizing the list, the respondent-BESCOM rejected the request of the petitioners. Further, learned counsel submits that if the petitioners make available the documents to demonstrate that they would fulfill the conditions of settlement, the respondents would re-consider the same. 4. The petitioners claim that they were working as Gangamen/Bill Distribution Boys since 2000. As per Annexure-A dated 03.06.2004, settlement was arrived at between the Employer and KPTCL Employees Union to convert Gangmen working as on 01.4.2003 as Probationary Mazdoors in a phased manner not exceeding 7528 Nos. Thereafter, the respondent-BESCOM in a phased manner absorbed certain Gangmen as Probationary Mazdoors. But it appears that the petitioners’ names were left out in the list of persons who were absorbed in pursuance to the settlement. It is seen from Annexure-C dated 30.10.2009, that the Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Chandapura had forwarded the names of persons whose names were left out inadvertently, for further action and the said list includes the names of the petitioners. It would also reveal that the same was forwarded after verifying the Attendance Extract and it was found correct. It is seen from Annexure-C dated 30.10.2009, that the Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Chandapura had forwarded the names of persons whose names were left out inadvertently, for further action and the said list includes the names of the petitioners. It would also reveal that the same was forwarded after verifying the Attendance Extract and it was found correct. The petitioners names were once again forwarded under Annexure-D dated 08.3.2010 and Annexure-E dated 29.3.2010 along with necessary documents. Subsequently, under Annexure-G, resolution dated 20.9.2016 the respondent-BESCOM had resolved once again, according approval for conversion of 315 Nos. Bill Delivery Boys as Probationary Mazdoors. Atleast on that occasion, the respondents could have considered the cases of the petitioners, if the petitioners fulfilled the conditions laid down in the settlement. But the reason assigned in the endorsement at Annexure-R dated 22.11.2019 that the petitioners have failed to produce the required documents and their cases were forwarded belatedly appears to be not correct. The names of the petitioners were forwarded for consideration to the Competent Authority under Annexure-C dated 30.10.2009 and Annexure-E dated 29.03.2010. If the names of the petitioners were not available at the first instance, it was available as on the date of resolution dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure-G) before the Competent Authority. Therefore, reasons assigned in the impugned endorsement would not stand to reasons. 5. For the reasons stated above, Annexure-R, endorsement bearing No.BESCOM/BC25/41/2019-20/1178 dated 22.11.2019 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to re-consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the settlement arrived at as per Annexure-A dated 03.06.2004 as well as Resolution dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure-G) and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is open for the petitioners to make one more representation along with necessary documents within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order. With the above, writ petition is disposed off.