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(IR&L)/AS(L)/PO-H3/WP 15095 of 2005-08 dt.28.02.2008 issued by the 2 nd respondent. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as LDC on par with his colleagues who were appointed in terms of Notification dated 24.04.2001, 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 3rd respondent from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.1998. The 3 rd 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, he had submitted an application along with all the certificates including the service certificate issued by the contractor and counter signed by the departmental officials. 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. (b) After conducting the interviews, the respondents have 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 results of interview held as “NIL” (c) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5746 of 2003 before this court. While adjudicating this case along with batch of cases, the Hon’ble Court 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. While adjudicating this case along with batch of cases, the Hon’ble Court 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". Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed by an order dated 28.10.2004 directing the respondents to consider petitioner’s case in the light of the aforesaid observations for their absorption pursuant to the orders in BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Despite such direction given by this Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated 31.12.2004 rejecting the petitioner’s case. (d) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again filed W.P.No.15095 of 2005, challenging the letter, dated 31.12.2004. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated 03.01.2007 disposed of the above Writ Petition, giving liberty to produce all the relevant material before the 2 nd respondent. Pursuant to the above direction, the petitioner had submitted representation, duly enclosing the educational qualifications and also service certificates and requested to appoint the petitioner as LDC in terms of BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. However, without considering the submissions made by the petitioner, in gross violation of the earlier orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.5746 of 2003, the 2nd respondent issued a Memo, dated 28.02.2008, once again rejecting petitioner’s request for appointment as LDC. As such, the present Writ Petition is being filed, questioning the order, dated 28.02.2008 issued by the 2 nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are bent upon to reject the petitioner’s case on one pretext or the other. However, while adjudicating W.P. No.5746 of 2003 and batch, this Hon'ble Court categorically held that for the fault of contractor, the contract labour cannot be punished and find fault with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are bent upon to reject the petitioner’s case on one pretext or the other. However, while adjudicating W.P. No.5746 of 2003 and batch, this Hon'ble Court categorically held that for the fault of contractor, the contract labour cannot be punished and find fault with. Having held so, this Hon'ble Court directed the respondents to verify the certificates issued by the contractor with reference to the agreements, under which, the contract labour were engaged. However, even after the judgment in W.P.No.5746 of 2003 and batch, by reiterating the same old grounds, the petitioner’s request for being appointed as LDC was rejected, thereby showing utter disregard to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.5746 of 2003 and batch. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while rejecting petitioner’s case vide order, dated 18.02.2008, respondents contended that upon enquiry, though the contractor conceded that the service certificate was issued by him, he stated to have informed the Enquiry Officer that he had not maintained any record, as he was not asked to do so. As the contractor had not maintained the records, a presumption was drawn, as if, the service certificate issued by the contractor, which was counter signed by the departmental officials, was not genuine and accordingly, it was held that petitioner was not eligible for appointment in terms of BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that such an action on the part of the respondents is wholly illegal. Once the service certificate clearly indicate the period of service rendered by the petitioner, which was even counter signed by the departmental official, which clearly discloses petitioner’s period of working, his case cannot be rejected on the ground that contractor could not maintain the record. If any Rule or Regulation mandates the contractor to maintain the records, he may be liable for such lapse. But, on that ground, petitioner’s certificate cannot be presumed as wrong. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter and submits as follows: (a) That in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 orders were issued for filling up of 50% of the vacant posts of LDCs/Typist/JPOs/Ex-Casual Labour/VEWs and Contract Labour existing as on that day subject to fulfilling the conditions mentioned therein. Accordingly, Notification was issued on 28.04.2001 from the desired candidates. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter and submits as follows: (a) That in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 orders were issued for filling up of 50% of the vacant posts of LDCs/Typist/JPOs/Ex-Casual Labour/VEWs and Contract Labour existing as on that day subject to fulfilling the conditions mentioned therein. Accordingly, Notification was issued on 28.04.2001 from the desired candidates. While so,inasmuch as the petitioner herein, who applied for the post of LDC/Typist, had failed to oblige the conditions laid down therein, he could not be selected. Inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the Notification, dated 30.11.2002, calling him for the interview, will not confer on him any right to claim for appointment since his selection was subject to the fulfillment of the conditions laid down in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 to which the petitioner failed to oblige. As such, he could not be selected for the post of LDC. (b) Since no successful candidates were available in the interview, NIL results were notified in the daily Newspaper. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed Writ Petition seeking directions to the respondents to declare the said results as illegal. In pursuance of the above, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated 28.10.2004 in W.P.No.5746 of 2004 and W.P.No.5158 of 2003 and batch, set aside the above NIL results and directed to consider the case inter alia of the case of the petitioner in the light of observation made in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. In pursuance of the above orders, since the petitioner did not qualify in proceedings, dated 31.12.2004, necessary speaking orders were issued to the petitioner indicating the reasons for his non-selection to the post.. (c) Aggrieved by the above rejection orders, dated 31.12.2004, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking direction to the respondentsto quash the said speaking orders. While so, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated 03.01.2007 inter alia in W.P.No.15095 of 2005 and batch, passed the following: “1. The petitioners are at liberty to produce all the relevant material before the Chief General Manager of the respondent organization on or before 24-02-07 to substantiate their claim. 2. While so, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated 03.01.2007 inter alia in W.P.No.15095 of 2005 and batch, passed the following: “1. The petitioners are at liberty to produce all the relevant material before the Chief General Manager of the respondent organization on or before 24-02-07 to substantiate their claim. 2. On receiving such material, the Chief General Manager is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in the light of the material to be produced by the petitioners and the record available with them and pass a speaking order as expeditiously as possible.” (d) In pursuance of the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court, vide proceedings, dated 02.05.2007, the Superintending Engineer/Operation/ DPE/ NPDC Ltd., was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the material produced by the petitioner for considering his case for the post of LDC. The Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry submitted that the service certificate produced by the petitioner is not genuine. The respondents after a detailed examination of the report, accepting with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, rejected the case of the petitioner for the post of LDC vide proceedings, dated 28.02.2008. (e) In pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its common order, dated 03.01.2007 in W.P.No.15095 of 2005, the petitioner filed the contempt case in C.C. No.174 of 2008, and the same was dismissed. Thus, the petitioner had failed to prove the genuineness of the service certificate produced by him. Thus, the action taken by the respondents herein rejecting this case is justified. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 8. A perusal of the impugned Order, dated 28.02.2008 shows that the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner by observing as follows: During the enquiry, the contractor deposed that he has not maintained any registers. The petitioner Sri C. Jaya Singh also admitted that he did not sign in the muster roll or wage register. Their above version makes it clear that the mandatory norm of the petitioner's existence on the rolls of establishment as on 18-05-1997 has not gained acceptance. As such the unavailableness of records with the contractor has lost its essence for acceptability of the service certificate as to its genuineness. Their above version makes it clear that the mandatory norm of the petitioner's existence on the rolls of establishment as on 18-05-1997 has not gained acceptance. As such the unavailableness of records with the contractor has lost its essence for acceptability of the service certificate as to its genuineness. The above failure on the part of the petitioner has been further strengthened with the revelation of the fact by Sri. G. Ravinder, Ex-AE/Civil/Nirmal citing that the petitioner is unscrupulous and of his signing is confinable only to the extent of the contractor's performance of works during his tenure. From the above, it is evident that the service certificate produced by the petitioner Sri T. Narsimha Chary is found not genuine. 9. The main observation of the authorities is that the contractor deposed that he had not maintained any registers. The petitioner also admitted that he did not sign in the muster roll or wage register. Their above version makes it clear that the mandatory norm of the petitioner's existence on the rolls of establishment as on 18-05-1997 has not gained acceptance. Moreover, according to the respondents, Sri. G. Ravinder, Ex- AE/Civil/Nirmal, cited the petitioner is dishonest, and his signature is confined only to the extent of the contractor's performance of works during his tenure. In view of the above lacunae, the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner. 10. 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. 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. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds stated in the rejection order are not sustainable in rejecting the case of the petitioner. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as once the preliminary document i.e. service certificate has lacunae; it cannot be taken into consideration. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. 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.