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 aside the letter No.CGM(HRD)/GM(IR&L)/AS-(L)/PO-H3/WP No. 7038 of 2005-08 dt.18.02.2008 issued by the 2 nd respondent. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as LDC 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 under the 3rd respondent from 01.06.1996 to 30.06.1999 vide agreement No.27, 50 and 57/95-96, 13, 49/96-97, 70/95-98 and check measured on 29.09.1997. 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 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 official. (b) Thereafter, all the applications and certificates produced by the candidates were scrutinized by the officials of the 1 st 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" . Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5158 of 2003. 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" . Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5158 of 2003. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 28.10.2004 along with batch and this 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". (c) Despite such clear and categorical direction given by this Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated 08.01.2005 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for being appointed as LDC. The reasons stated in the said letter are not only incorrect but also contrary to the orders of this court in W.P.No.5158 of 2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again filed W.P.No.7038 of 2005, challenging the letter, dated 08.01.2005. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated 03.01.2007 disposed of the above Writ Petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to produce all relevant material before the CGM. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation, duly enclosing the educational qualifications, service certificates and requested to appoint him as LDC. However, once again the petitioner’s request was rejected vide Memo, dated 18.02.2008 of the 2 nd respondent. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 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. This court categorically held that that for the fault of Contractor, the contract labour cannot be punished and find fault with. 5. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 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. This court categorically held that that for the fault of Contractor, the contract labour cannot be punished and find fault with. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the contention of the respondents that the contractor, who issued the service certificates, had not maintained any record and hence such certificates are not genuine; is not correct. The service certificate clearly discloses the period of service of the petitioner and is counter signed by the departmental official, even then, the respondents without considering this fact, had passed the impugned Memo dated 18.02.2008 which is illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable. If any rule or regulation mandates the contractor to maintain records, he may be liable for such lapse. Moreover, merely because the contractor had stated that he has not maintained records; it does not infer that the service certificates issued by him were not genuine. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Contractor categorically admitted that, the service certificate issued to the petitioner is correct. Further, departmental official also counter signed the same, which also authenticates the same. Further, on previous occasion Vigilance Department verified the same and found it as genuine. Even the authorities also verified and found it as correct. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the 2 nd respondent that, as the Contractor did not maintain the records, the service certificate issued by him is to be treated as not genuine, is not correct. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as a matter of fact, while disposing of W.P.No.5158 of 2003, this Court categorically held that the only criteria in deciding the genuineness of the cases of the petitioners, as to whether they worked as on 18.05.1997 or not, will be only on verification of service certificate issued by the Contractor and counter signed by the officials of the respondents, with reference to the agreements entered into with the contractor. The above finding of this Court has become final; therefore, it is binding on the respondents. The above finding of this Court has become final; therefore, it is binding on the respondents. In the earlier round of litigations, the respondents have opposed petitioner’s plea on the ground that, petitioner was not on the rolls as on 18.05.1997 and that there was no check measurement and there were no dates, the certificate does not bear any date. However, while issuing the present impugned order, dated 18.02.2008, respondents have taken all together different ground. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order also discloses that, the Enquiry Officer had examined the officials, who have counter signed the certificate issued by the Contractor. The officials accepted that they were examined in the absence of the petitioner; they have counter signed the certificate issued by the Contractor after verifying the agreements, check measurements and that they have been the petitioner while working as contract labour under the 1st respondent Company. But, the said statements of the officials have been completely ignored and the impugned order, dated 18.02.2008 was passed only on the ground that the Contractor could not maintain the records up to 2007. Hence, the impugned order is devoid of merits and liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the 2ndrespondent 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 i.e. LDCs/Typist/JPOs, Ex- Casual Labour/VEWs and Contract Labour 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. Since no successful candidates were available in the interview, NIL results were notified in the daily Newspaper. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition seeking directions to the respondents to declare the said results as illegal. (b) In pursuance of the above, 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 the respondents to consider the case inter alia of the petitioner in the light of the observation made in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. (b) In pursuance of the above, 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 the respondents to consider the case inter alia of the petitioner in the light of the observation made in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Accordingly, necessary speaking orders were issued to him by this office proceedings Lr.No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-II/571/04, dated 08.01.2005 communicating the reason for his non-selection to the post. (c) 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 quash the said speaking orders. While so, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its order 03.01.2007 in W.P.No.7038 of 2005 and batch passed the common orders as follows: 1. The petitioners are at liberty to produce all the relevant material before the Chief General Manager of the respondent organization on or before 24.02.2007 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 orders Hon'ble High Court of A.P., dated 03.01.2007 in W.P.No.7038 of 2005, vide Procs. No. CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-II/PO-IV-24/07, dated 02.05.2007, the Superintending Engineer/ Operation/ DPE/ NPDC Ltd., was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into material produced by the petitioner for considering his case for the post of LDC. While so, the Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry has submitted the findings of the enquiry report, wherein he held that the service certificate produced by the petitioner is not genuine. (e) The respondent authorities after a detailed examination of the report, decisively accepting with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, rejected the case of the petitioner for the post of LDC. Accordingly, vide proceedings, dated 18.02.2008, the petitioner was communicated the reasons for rejecting of his case for the post of LDC. Thus, the common orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., dated 03.01.2007 in W.P.No.7038 of 2005 filed by the petitioner have been scrupulously obeyed. Accordingly, vide proceedings, dated 18.02.2008, the petitioner was communicated the reasons for rejecting of his case for the post of LDC. Thus, the common orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., dated 03.01.2007 in W.P.No.7038 of 2005 filed by the petitioner have been scrupulously obeyed. The petitioner terming the action of the respondent as contempt of the court orders, dated 03.01.2007 in W.P.No.7038 of 2005, filed C.C. No.110 of 2008 and the same was also as dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P, by its order, dated 01.05.2008. (f) Since the petitioner failed to substantiate his date of engagement as on 18.05.1997 on the rolls of contractors establishment in terms of B.P. (P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, his case could not be considered for the post of LDC. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 10. A perusal of the impugned Order, dated 18.02.2008 shows that the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner by observing as follows: The Contractor during the enquiry has revealed that he has issued service certificate to Sri Vidya Sagar, but records are not available with him, because nobody has told him to maintain records. His said utterance of unavailability of records in guise of that he has not been sensitized or not informed by anybody is purely a manufactured and invented one for his easy way out from his contractual obligations inter alia from the producibility of the mandated records under labour Act. His said lying act will not legalise the wrongous service certificate issued by him. His agreeability to the work awarded to him lays down a binding force on him for the scrupulous maintenance of records as per the statutory Acts and to keep them updated for perusal until the agreement loses its essence for its enforcement. Thus the service certificate which was issued by him evidently has lost its substantialism. While so, blocking of K2 agreement with the APTS officials has no bearing on the determinability of the certificate as to its genuineness. Thus, the petitioner's proposition of his having worked with the contractor from 01-06-1996 to 30-06-1999 with the above untenable background has lost its accountability for acknowledgement. This clearly establishes that the contractor issued certificate mentioning the period imaginatively to the best of his memory, but not based on the determinable recorded facts. Thus, the petitioner's proposition of his having worked with the contractor from 01-06-1996 to 30-06-1999 with the above untenable background has lost its accountability for acknowledgement. This clearly establishes that the contractor issued certificate mentioning the period imaginatively to the best of his memory, but not based on the determinable recorded facts. Thus, he is arithmetically indecisive of the exact period of working by petitioner under him. The endorsement of the above suspectable period by the departmental officials has further liberalized and legalized the concept of un-acceptableness of the certificate. From the above established reasons it is found that the Service Certificate produced by the petitioner Sri Vidya Sagar is not genuine. 11. The main observation of the authorities is that the service certificate is not genuine in view of the reasons mentioned supra. To fortify their contention, the respondent authorities 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. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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.