ORDER : (V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.) : 1. This writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the following relief: - “For the reasons set-out in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of 3rd respondent in proceedings No. SE/O/NLR/Adm U2/C4/D.No.241/2001, dated 18-4-2001, refusing to consider case of the petitioner for appointment to the posts of Sub Engineer on the ground that the 50% of the vacancies were already filled up as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary to the principles of natural justice, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and grant all consequential benefits by holding that the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the posts of Sub Engineer; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.” In the writ petition, it is averred that under the respondents, he underwent apprenticeship training for a period of 1 year between 25.04.1994 and 24.04.1995 as electrical and electronics engineer and successfully completed the training. It is further mentioned that the writ petitioner worked as a contract labour for 7 years in Guduru division. 2. Earlier he filed W.P.No.1064 of 2000 whereunder he sought a direction to respondents to consider his candidature for appointment to the posts of Sub-Engineer on the ground that he had undergone apprenticeship training in the respondents-corporation. By an order dated 28.04.2000, a learned Judge of this court directed the respondents-corporation that whenever the corporation was filling up the vacancies of the posts of Sub- Engineers, preference should be given to the writ petitioner, as he worked as apprentice in the respondents-corporation, over the untrained candidates seeking employment to the posts which he is eligible. 3. Thereafter, the respondents-corporation issued the impugned proceedings in SE/O/NLR/Adm U2/C4/D.No.241/2001 dated 18.04.2001. The order reads as below: - Lr.No. SE/O/NLR/Adm U2/C4/D.No.241/2001 dated 18.04.2001 Sir, Sub: - A.P.SPDCL – Nellore - Industrial Relations - Filling up of 50% Vacancies in the initial recruitment caders of LDCs/Typist/Sub-Engineers existing as on 18-5-97 - Reg. Ref: - 1.Memo.No.SE/O/NLR/Am C2/D.??. 235/98, dt.21- 05-98 2. Memo. No. Addl.Secretary/DIR/AS/IR/PO 2/AI/1833/98 dt.10-5-99. 3. Hon’ble High Court Judgement, dt. The order reads as below: - Lr.No. SE/O/NLR/Adm U2/C4/D.No.241/2001 dated 18.04.2001 Sir, Sub: - A.P.SPDCL – Nellore - Industrial Relations - Filling up of 50% Vacancies in the initial recruitment caders of LDCs/Typist/Sub-Engineers existing as on 18-5-97 - Reg. Ref: - 1.Memo.No.SE/O/NLR/Am C2/D.??. 235/98, dt.21- 05-98 2. Memo. No. Addl.Secretary/DIR/AS/IR/PO 2/AI/1833/98 dt.10-5-99. 3. Hon’ble High Court Judgement, dt. 28-4-2000 in W.P. No.1064/2000. In continuation to the letter Ist cited and in light of the instructions of A.P.TRANSCO in reference IInd cited, and in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the reference IIIrd cited your case has been considered irrespective of the fact that you were engaged by an un-licensed contractor. The 50% Vacancies existing as on 18-5-97 were filled up with eligible and selected candidates duly following the Rule of Reservation. Your turn has not come up for consideration. In view of the above your case for the appointment in A.P. TRANSCO/A.P.SPDCL could not be considered. 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 Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and that orders were implemented in its entirety. Yours faithfully, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION : : NELLORE. 4. By the above proceedings, it is seen that the candidature of the writ petitioner was considered for the post of Sub-Engineer and was finally he was not given appointment for the reasons mentioned in the proceedings. In the present writ petition, the said proceedings is challenged. Before considering this challenge, it is to be noticed that subsequent to the issuance of the said proceedings, this writ petitioner filed C.C.No.822 of 2001 before this court. A learned Judge of this court by an order dated 19.07.2001 disposed of the same in the following terms: - “This Court by order dated 22-1-2000 in W.P.No. 1064 of 2000 directed the respondent-Corporation that whenever the Corporation is filling up the vacancies of the posts of Sub-Engineers, preference should be given to the petitioner, if he worked as apprentice in the respondent - Corporation over the untrained candidates seeking employment to the posts to which he is eligible. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed by this court, the case of the petitioner was considered and he was intimated through a letter dated 18-4-2001 intimating the petitioner that 50 percent vacancies existing as on 18- 5-1997 were filled up with eligible and selected candidates duly following the Rule of Reservations and that the case of the petitioner has been considered irrespective of the fact that he was engaged by an unlicensed contractor and his turn has not come up for consideration. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the respondents have flouted the orders passed by this Court making themselves liable for Contempt of the Court. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18-4-2001, it is open for him to challenge the same before the appropriate proceedings. The contempt case is closed. 5. Since this court granted liberty, the present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 18.04.2001. 6. Sri P.A. Seshu, the learned counsel for writ petitioner contends that the sanctioned posts of Sub-Engineers were 56 and as on May, 1997 only 26 posts were filled up. Thus, there were 30 posts that were vacant. By virtue of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997, the respondents had to fill up 50% of the vacancies. 50% of the vacancies come to 15 posts. The respondents filled up only 13 posts. Thus, there were two posts of Sub-Engineer which were still vacant. Since the writ petitioner had completed his apprentice, he has to be given preference over other candidates as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P.S.R.T.Corporation V. U.P.Parivahan Nigam S.B.Sangh, AIR 1995 SC 1115 / (1995) 2 SCC 1 . That the 3rd respondent without considering the vacancy position erroneously rejected the claim of the writ petitioner over the posts of Sub-Engineer. That the writ petitioner is eligible and qualified for the post of Sub- Engineer and non-consideration of his case by the 3rd respondent is illegal, unjust and contrary to law and thus violative of the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. For these reasons, the learned counsel for writ petitioner seeks to issue writ of mandamus. That the writ petitioner is eligible and qualified for the post of Sub- Engineer and non-consideration of his case by the 3rd respondent is illegal, unjust and contrary to law and thus violative of the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. For these reasons, the learned counsel for writ petitioner seeks to issue writ of mandamus. Here itself, it has to be recorded that the contention that his case was not considered by the respondent cannot be countenanced since this court in C.C.No.822 of 2001 itself recorded that his case was considered by the respondents. 7. Adverting to the facts mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents stating that 15 vacancies meant for filling up of Ex.Casual labourers, VEWs and contract labourers have been filled up by eligible candidates duly following communal roster. It is further mentioned that 13 posts were given to persons by following communal roster and two posts that were reserved for SC-B and ST were also filled up with eligible candidates at a subsequent point of time. Since the case of writ petitioner on consideration of number of man days put in by the candidates did not qualify, he could not be selected as his case could not come up for consideration in the manner that is required under rules. It is further mentioned that no recruitment has been made for the post of Sub-Engineer to give preference to the petitioner. Respondents sought dismissal of the writ petition. 8. As against that a reply affidavit was filed by the writ petitioner stating that out of 15 posts only 11 posts were filled up initially with eligible candidates as per communal roster and thereafter two posts were filed up which were reserved for SC-B and ST in terms of the roster and there exist still two more vacancies that remained unfilled. Respondents did not disclose the names of 15 persons. If the respondents are directed to produce the relevant records, the conduct of the respondents would be exposed before this court and the fact that they gave false affidavit would be clear. That this writ petitioner had already mentioned in the writ petition the names of the 13 persons who were given posts. It is for these reasons, he sought this court to allow the writ petition. 9. That this writ petitioner had already mentioned in the writ petition the names of the 13 persons who were given posts. It is for these reasons, he sought this court to allow the writ petition. 9. On 11.09.2023, this court heard the arguments of learned counsel both sides and directed the learned counsel for respondents to furnish the relevant record concerning two posts that were involved in this writ petition as to how and in what manner they were filled up. Learned counsel for respondents sought time to file the same. On subsequent days no such information was furnished despite granting time to learned counsel for respondents on 26.09.2023 and on other dates. It is in these circumstances, as the respondents failed to meet the direction of this court and the assertions made in the writ petition as well as reply affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, this court for the purpose of this writ petition considers it appropriate to think that two posts still remain vacant as contended by the writ petitioner. Keeping that assumption in mind the prayer in the writ petition has to be considered. 10. The order impugned was passed on 18.04.2001 by the respondents. It was already extracted in the earlier paragraphs. In this order it is mentioned that writ petitioner was engaged by an unlicensed contractor but his case was considered by virtue of the directions of this court in W.P.No.1064 of 2000. The writ petitioner is expected to explain this part of the order. It shall be noted that the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as the reply affidavit filed by the writ petitioner as well as the arguments of the learned counsel for writ petitioner are completely silent on this aspect. Thus, when the impugned order mentions the disqualification of the writ petitioner and since the same is not challenged by any contrary facts or law, the writ petitioner has no ground to urge anything further. 11. In paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is mentioned that there are no unutilized vacancies of Sub-Engineers meant for Ex-casual labourers, VEWs and contract labourers. This aspect of the matter is not adverted to in the reply affidavit of the writ petitioner. 12. 11. In paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is mentioned that there are no unutilized vacancies of Sub-Engineers meant for Ex-casual labourers, VEWs and contract labourers. This aspect of the matter is not adverted to in the reply affidavit of the writ petitioner. 12. B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 is for filling up of 50 existing vacancies in initial recruitment of Ex-casual labourers who obtained court orders and also for village electricity workers. How many posts should be filled up out of the existing vacancies is a matter of the decision of the respondents over which no one else has a right to say that the respondents should fill up all the vacancies or should leave some of the vacancies or should recruit more people than the existing vacancies. Even if it is assumed what the writ petitioner tells is correct and out of 15 only 13 vacancies were filled up that by itself does not make the impugned orders dated 18.04.2001 invalid. When the respondents had categorically mentioned that the turn of the writ petitioner had not come up there is no more enquiry that is required and the prayer in the writ petition that the writ petitioner must be declared as entitled for appointment for the posts of Sub- Engineer cannot be countenanced at law. 13. One of the contentions of the respondents is that they considered the number of man-days put in by the candidates and going by that the writ petitioner did not achieve the slot. It shall be recorded that the writ petition is silent as to the man-days put in by him and as to where he could fit in the communal roster and whether any individuals with lesser man-days than him were recruited by the respondents. He cannot expect the court to make a roving enquiry to find out where he stands in the order of seniority. 14. In the counter, it is categorically mentioned that no recruitment was made for the post of Sub-Engineer to give preference to the writ petitioner. It shall be mentioned that the reply affidavit of the writ petitioner had furnished no fact in this regard. It may be stated here that the writ petitioner has been mixing up the posts to be filled up by the casual labourers and the posts of Sub-Engineers. His first writ petition was concerning posts of Sub-Engineers. It shall be mentioned that the reply affidavit of the writ petitioner had furnished no fact in this regard. It may be stated here that the writ petitioner has been mixing up the posts to be filled up by the casual labourers and the posts of Sub-Engineers. His first writ petition was concerning posts of Sub-Engineers. In the present writ petition, he also mentions the other posts which were filled up by casual labourers. Thus, it has to be stated that the writ petitioner failed to demonstrate violation of any legal obligations on part of the respondents. It is in these circumstances, this court finds no merit in this writ petition. 15. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.