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(S)/AS-II/PO.IV/202/05 dt. 10.09.2005 issued by the 1 st respondent. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as LDC or any other initial recruitment cadre on par with others, 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 01.04.1992 to 31.08.1999. 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 1st 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 respondents issued a Notification published in the Vaartha Telugu daily, dated 13.01.2003, holding that there were no successful candidates and the result of interview held as "NIL" (c) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5746 of 2003 along with others. After the said report, the respondents issued a Notification published in the Vaartha Telugu daily, dated 13.01.2003, holding that there were no successful candidates and the result of interview held as "NIL" (c) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5746 of 2003 along with others. The said Writ Petition was adjudicated along with the batch of Writ Petitions. i.e., WP No.5158 of 2003, dated 28.10.2004. While allowing the above batch of Writ Petitions, this Court categorically observed as follows: "It is for the respondent board to verify the certificates produced by the petitioners with reference to the agreements awarded to the contractor, which were verified and counter signed by the official respondents. Therefore, the action of the respondents in simply rejecting the cases of the petitioners based on the Vigilance Inspector's report on the ground that the contract has not produced the aforesaid registers is unreasonable and unsustainable. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to verify the certificates issued by the contractor and counter signed by the officials of the respondents with reference to the agreements under which particular contract labours are engaged as on 18.05.1997 and consider their cases for appointment in accordance with BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997". (d) Despite such clear and categorical direction given by this Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated 31.12.2004 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for being appointed as LDC on the ground that petitioner’s case need not be considered, as he had already appeared for the interview. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again filed W.P.No.5954 of 2005, challenging the letter, dated 31.12.2004. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated 11.07.2005 set aside the letter, dated 31.12.2004 and issued a consequential direction to the respondents to apply mind to the directions and observations made by this Court in W.P. No.5746 of 2003, dated 28.10.2004 and pass orders in accordance with law. Once again, letter dated 10.09.2005 was issued by the 2 nd respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s request. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are bent upon to reject the case of the petitioner on one pretext or the other. The service certificate produced by the petitioner clearly establishes that he worked as Contract Labour from 01.04.1992 to 31.08.1999. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are bent upon to reject the case of the petitioner on one pretext or the other. The service certificate produced by the petitioner clearly establishes that he worked as Contract Labour from 01.04.1992 to 31.08.1999. As such, he is a contract labour as on the cut of date i.e. 18.05.1997, therefore, by showing those untenable reasons, petitioner cannot be deprived of his appointment. The present Writ Petition is filed against the impugned Order, dated 10.09.2005. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter and submits as follows: (a) That in B.P(P&G-Per) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 orders were issued for filling up of 50% of the existing vacant posts available as on 18.05.1997 in the initial recruitment cadre i.e. Sub-Engineer / LDCs /Typist / Ex-Casual Labour / VEWs /& Contract Labour subject to conditions mentioned therein and subsequent instruction issued thereon. (b) While so, since there were no successful candidates in the interview held and since they failed to oblige the conditions laid down therein, results of the interview were declared as -NIL- and the same was published in the Telugu Newspaper Vartha, dated 13.01.2003. While so, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its order, dated 28.10.2004 in WP.No.5158 of 2003 & W.P.No.5746 and batch, set aside the above NIL results and directed to re-verify the service certificates produced by the petitioner. Accordingly, in terms of the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the matter in respect of the petitioner herein has been reviewed and since the petitioner had not adhered to the conditions mentioned in B.P(P&G-Per) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 for appointment, he could not be selected for the post of LDC. (c) The petitioner herein was already interviewed as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.14167 of 2000 and could not be selected in view of the Hon'ble High Court directions in its Judgment dated 18.11.1999 in W.P.No.5064 and batch that the respondent need not consider the cases of such or those candidates who were already appeared for the interview and were not considered. As such, the petitioner's case was not considered for selection. Accordingly, necessary speaking orders were issued to him by this office proceedings Lr.No. CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-II/PO-IV/497/04, dated 31.12.2004 communicating the reason for this non-selection to the post of LDC. As such, the petitioner's case was not considered for selection. Accordingly, necessary speaking orders were issued to him by this office proceedings Lr.No. CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-II/PO-IV/497/04, dated 31.12.2004 communicating the reason for this non-selection to the post of LDC. (d) Aggrieved by the rejection orders of his selection, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking direction to the respondents to declare the speaking orders issued to him by this office, dated 31.12.2004 as illegal. While so, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its order 11.07.2005 in W.P.No.5954 of 2005 directed to follow the observations made in WP.No.5158 of 2003, dated 28.10.2004 and pass appropriate orders. In view of the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the matter had been reviewed and since the petitioner’s date of working in the contractor's establishment was not established, he could not be selected. Accordingly, speaking orders were issued by this office vide proceeding No. Lr. No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-II/PO-IV/202/05, dated 10.09.2005. (e) The service certificate produced by the petitioner was not in accordance with the mandated guidelines issued in B.P(P&G-Per)Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 read with instructions issued thereon vide Memo. Addl. Secy/DGM(IR)/AS-IR/PO-II/A1/1170/99, dated 03.12.1999 which are the pre-conditions for providing employment to him. As such, his case for the post of LDC was rejected. Thus, the petitioner had failed to prove the genuineness of the service certificate produced by him. Thus, the action taken by the respondents in here in rejecting this case is justified. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 6. A perusal of the impugned Order, dated 10.09.2005 shows that the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner by observing as follows: (a) The service certificate produced by the petitioner has been examined and it is observed that neither the service certificate bears any date of issue nor the Signatories on certificate put any date. Therefore, it could not be established whether the certificate issued was genuine as date of the certificate is an important element. (b) Further in the certificate there were additions made subsequently without any endorsement and therefore it could not be established whether the additions were proper and added by the competent person. (c) The signature of the person who issued the certificate is different in case of certificates submitted by other incumbents and thereby leading to the apprehension whether the signature is correct. (c) The signature of the person who issued the certificate is different in case of certificates submitted by other incumbents and thereby leading to the apprehension whether the signature is correct. (d) It was not clear from the service certificate whether the agreements quoted were of K2 or LS or otherwise. Therefore, it could not be established whether the incumbent was on the rolls as on 18-05-1997 as if the agreements were of shorter duration and/or lesser value petitioner/the contractor may not have executed he works as on 18-05-1997. (e) The contractor could not produce any records despite specific request in order to establish the genuineness of the certificate and also to verify if the petitioner worked as on 18-05-1997. It was however, confessed by the contractor that the petitioner worked with him about 15 to 20 days and not throughout the month and therefore it could not be concluded whether the petitioner was on the rolls as on 18-05-1997 which is an essential condition to be full filled if contract labour were to be considered for appointment as per judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 19402/2002 AP Transco Vs. G. Trivikram and others. (f) The departmental officials who put the signature on the service certificate stated that he only certificated and attested the agreement and work carried out by the contractor but he did not know candidates and did not verify the records about the attendance pertaining to the candidates. As per reference 4th cited above, the departmental officials is required to certify duly verifying with reference to Agreement under which the particular contract labour is engaged i.e., prior to 18-05-1997 and confirming that the check-measurement is after 18-05- 1997. In view of the statement by the departmental official that he only attested the agreement and work carried out, it lacks the requisite certification and therefore it could not be established that as on 18-05-1997 the petitioner was on the rolls of the contractor. 7. The principal observation of the authorities is that neither the service certificate bears any date of issue nor the Signatories thereon affixed any date. It is further observed that certain additions appear to have been made in the certificate subsequently, without any proper endorsement. The Contractor admitted that the petitioner had worked under him only for about 15 to 20 days and not throughout the month. It is further observed that certain additions appear to have been made in the certificate subsequently, without any proper endorsement. The Contractor admitted that the petitioner had worked under him only for about 15 to 20 days and not throughout the month. Hence, it could not be conclusively established that the petitioner was on the rolls as on 18.05.1997. 8. Furthermore, the departmental officials are required to certify the engagement of contract labour only after duly verifying the records with reference to Agreement under which such labour was engaged, to ensure that existed prior to 18.05.1997. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies and lack of reliable material, the respondent authorities have rejected the petitioner’s claim. 9. To fortify their contention, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.6498 of 2008 wherein similar set of facts were brought before the Court by the petitioners therein and the same was dismissed by observing as follows: “It is only the contract labour, that have been engaged at a particular point of time, that were entitled to be regularized, in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36. On an earlier occasion, the cases of the petitioners were rejected, on the ground that they failed to prove the fact that they have been engaged by labour contractor. When they approached this court, a specific direction was issued to the petitioners, as well as to the respondents, as regards the verification of record. On their part, the respondents got a vigilance enquiry conducted. The contractor, who issued the certificates, did not produce any record, and categorically stated that he did not maintain the same. An official, who endorsed on the certificates, refused to appear in the enquiry. At one point of time, he deposed that he no doubt endorsed on the certificates, but did not verify any record, such as Attendance Register, Acquittance Register, etc. With this back ground, the petitioners cannot be said to have proved their cases that they have been engaged as contract labour, on an earlier occasion. Under these circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.” Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners therein preferred an appeal by filing Writ Appeal No.958 of 2008 before this Court and the same was dismissed by observing that the petition involves disputed questions of fact, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds mentioned in the rejection order are unsustainable. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have taken “A” to “F” grounds, and the same cannot be denied. Out of them, one of the grounds was that the foundational document i.e. service certificate suffers from material lacunae and lacks authenticity; it cannot be accorded any evidentiary value for consideration. Furthermore, despite specific directions, the Contractor failed to produce any contemporaneous records to substantiate the genuineness of the said certificate or to establish that the petitioner was actually engaged on the rolls as on 18.05.1997. In view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.