ORDER : (SUREPALLI NANDA, J.) Heard Sri A. Phani Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under : “.....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 rejection orders issued to the petitioners through Lr.No.CGM(HRD) /GM(Per)/AS(Pers&Ser)/PO- A/214-A2/2022-1 dated 21.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 upholding the finding of previous committee that record proof submitted by the petitioners not available in pursuance to the notification dated 08.06.2006 and revised notification dated 13.07.2006 in speaking orders dated 18.02.2020 inspite of the said orders were set aside by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.11825/2021 & batch on 09.12.2021 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and set aside the same and declare that the petitioners are eligible and qualified to hold the post of Contract Junior Lineman on par with others as per notification dated 08.06.2006 and revised notification dated 13.07.2006 and grant all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners were engaged as Contract Junior Linemen in the year 2006 and have been serving continuously since then. Their requests for regularization were initially rejected due to pending criminal cases, which have been ended in acquittal or closure. Pursuant to W.P.No.11825 of 2021 and batch, on 09.12.2021, this Court set aside the rejection orders and directed for reconsideration of the requests of the petitioners. However, the Respondents issued fresh rejection orders dated 04.01.2024 citing a new ground that the petitioners were not sponsored through the Employment Exchange which was never part of the original rejection. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4. However, the Respondents issued fresh rejection orders dated 04.01.2024 citing a new ground that the petitioners were not sponsored through the Employment Exchange which was never part of the original rejection. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4. The petitioners approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.11825 of 2021 and batch and the relevant portion of the said order dated 09.12.2021 is extracted hereunder: “When the matters are taken up for hearing, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents had fairly conceded that the impugned orders dated 18.02.2020 and 09.03.2021 be set aside, as they are not reasoned orders. If only the petitioners submit fresh representations, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that let the petitioners be permitted to submit fresh representations and let the respondents consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 18.02.2020 and 09.03.2021 are set aside, as no reasons are assigned while rejecting the cases of the petitioners. The petitioners are permitted to submit fresh representations to the respondents seeking appointment as a Junior Lineman within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon such representations being received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.” 5. The respondent No.2 - Chief General Manager (HRD) TSSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad addressed a letter vide Lr.No. CGM(HRD) /GM(Per)/AS(Pers & Ser)/PO-A/ 214-A2/2022-1, dated 21.03.2022 to the petitioners herein observing as under: “The Hon'ble High Court by Common Orders dated 09.12.2021 disposed the W.P.No.11825 of 2021 filed by Sri Nelluri Thirupathaiah and 5 others with the following directions: "This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 18.02.2020 and 09.03.2021 are set aside, as no reasons are assigned while rejecting the cases of the petitioners. The petitioners are permitted to submit fresh representations to the respondents seeking appointment as a Junior Lineman within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon such representations being received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter". 2. In compliance of the above Orders of the Hon'ble High Court, your case is carefully examined. Upon careful consideration of the subject matter with reference to the record available the following speaking order is issued: 2.1. That the APCPDCL issued Notification dated 08.06.2006 for filling up 2443 vacant posts of Junior Lineman on Contract Basis. The vacancies notified to Operation Circle, Nalgonda are 214 Nos. Subsequently. revised Notification was issued on 20.10.2006. As per the selection criteria laid in the Revised Notification dated 20.10.2006 preference is given to the "Presently serving contract labour who are working now for manning of Sub-Stations of A.P.Transco/AP.Discoms with recorded evidence through Sub-Station Log Books to be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer OR Presently serving contract labour for any other works in A.P.Transco/A.P.Discoms with recorded evidence of EPF number in his name to be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer. 2.2 The petitioners herein in W.P.No. 11825 of 2021 and batch applied for the post of Contract JLMs in Nalgonda Circle. 2.3. The particulars of the petitioners of W.P.No.11825 of 2021 as per their applications are as follows: Sl. No. Name of the Petitioner Application No. Qualification Date of Birth Experience Certificate Issued By 1 Nelluri Tirupat haiah, S/o Narsimha 2969 ITI ( Electrical) 10-08-1976 DE/O/Suryapet – Working as Semi- Skilled at Kodad Town 2 Kanneboina Tirupati, S/o Nageswar Rao 2981 ITI ( Electrical) 20-03-1981 DE/O/Suryapet – Working as SS Operator at 33/ 11 KVSS, Mellacheruvu 3 V. Kiran Kumar, S/o Prasada Rao 3150 ITI ( Electrical) 04-08-1979 DE/O/Suryapet – Working as SS Operator at 33/ 11 KVSS, Chilkur 4 Sk. Abdul Raheem , S/o Janimiya 2614 ITI ( Electrical) 03-08-1977 DE/O/Suryapet – Working as SS Operator at 33/ 11 KVSS, G. Thirum alagiri 5 Akkiraju SCM Prasad, S/o Ram achandra Rao 3531 ITI ( Electrical) 30-06-1977 DE/O/Suryapet – Working as SS Operator at 33/ 11 KVSS, Nadigudem 6 Meda Shashi Kumar, S/o Madhava Rao 2968 ITI ( Electrical) 03-04-1977 DE/O/Suryapet – Working as Semi- Skilled at Kodad Town 2.4. On verification of records, it is found that, at the time of submitting applications for the post of contract JLM, the eligibility of the petitioners under the category of contract labour for the post of CJLM as per notification is not substantiated with record proof. Therefore, their names were not included by the then Selection Committee in the list of 539 eligible contract labour though they have passed the pole climbing test conducted on 05.06.2007. 2.5. All the above petitioners have approached the Hon'ble High Court seeking consideration of their cases for appointment as JLM and the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the WP No.4330 of 2015 by Orders dated 09.08.2019 in terms of the Orders dated 09.08.2019 in W.P.No.14304 of 2019 duly setting aside the Speaking Orders dated 08.07.2011, 13.07.2011 and 24.06.2011 issued to the petitioners. 2.6. In compliance of the above directions of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.4330 of 2015 the following Speaking Orders are issued to the above individuals vide Proceedings dated 18.02.2020. Out of 214 vacancies notified in Nalgonda Circle, as on date 490 posts were already filled in pursuance to the notification and various orders of the Hon'ble High Court. On verification of records, it is found that, at the time of submitting applications for the post of contract JLM, it was not substantiated with record proof that they are eligible for selection under the category of contract labour for the post of CJLM as per notification. Although they have passed the pole climbing test conducted during the period from 02.06.2007 to 06.06.2007, the selection committee did not consider their candidature, since they failed to substantiate with record proof that they are eligible to be considered under the contract labour category. The selection committee further found that they are not within the zone of consideration in the other category i.e., fresh candidate. Therefore, the selection committee did not include their names in the list of selected candidates. The then selection committee from among the candidates who are successful in the pole climbing test approved and finalized, the list of 539 eligible contract labour who produced the record proof for selection under contract labour category. The selection committee did not select any outsider for the posts notified in operation circle, Nalgonda as the candidates eligible under contract labour category are 539, whereas the post notified are 214 only. The selection committee did not select any outsider for the posts notified in operation circle, Nalgonda as the candidates eligible under contract labour category are 539, whereas the post notified are 214 only. Although they have enclosed the copies of record proof along with their representation dated 30-08-2019, same could not be verified with the original records, since the same are not available at this length of time. In the circumstances mentioned above, it stood established that they are not found eligible to be appointed as Contract JLM, hence consideration of their case with reference to clause 6 (iv) (c) of revised notification dated 20.10.2006 does not arise. 3. The above individuals challenged the Speaking Orders dated 18.02.2020 through W.P.No.11825 of 2021 and the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the same by Order Dated 09.12.2021 setting aside the Speaking Orders dated 18.02.2020 permitting the petitioner to file fresh representations seeking appointment as JLM and upon such representations being received directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said Orders the petitioners have submitted representations Dated Nil received on 24.12.2021 requesting to consider their case for appointment to the post of JLM on par with others with all consequential benefits. 4. A Committee was constituted vide Memo.No.CCM(HRD)/ GM(Per)/ AS(Per&Ser)/ P O-A/ 214-A2/ 2009, Dt. 17.01.2022 to examine the representations of the petitioners. The Committee having considered the material on record came to the conclusion that the findings arrived at by the previous committee which led to the issuance of Speaking Orders. dated 18-02-2020 do not call for any interference since the same hold good; that it concur with the decision of the JLM selection committee of 2007; and the decision of the previous Committee which gave rise to the Speaking Orders dated 18-02-2020. 5. Further it was held by the committee that, since the petitioners did not fulfill the criteria/ conditions stipulated for selection as Contract Junior Lineman and hence the petitioners are found not eligible to be appointed as CJLM in terms of the Notification. 6. For the reasons stated above, your representation dated Nil received on 24.12.2021 requesting for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman against the Notifications dated 08.06.2006 and 20.10.2006 is hereby rejected. 7. 6. For the reasons stated above, your representation dated Nil received on 24.12.2021 requesting for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman against the Notifications dated 08.06.2006 and 20.10.2006 is hereby rejected. 7. These orders are passed in compliance to the Orders dated 09.12.2021 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No. 11825 of 2021 and batch.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 6. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that the impugned rejection orders issued by the 2 nd respondent, dated 21.03.2022 had been passed mechanically, unilaterally in a routine manner simply upholding the earlier speaking orders, dated 18.02.2020 without assigning any reasons. The 2 nd respondent ignored the fact as borne on record that the earlier speaking orders, dated 18.02.2020 had been set-aside by this Court in its judgment, dated 09.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.11825 of 2021 hence, the 2 nd respondent could not have upheld the same vide the impugned orders, dated 21.03.2022 7. The learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly submits that in view of the fact as borne on record that the impugned rejection orders, dated 21.03.2022 issued by the 2 nd respondent are not in true spirit of the orders of this Court dated 09.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.11825 of 2021 and batch (referred to and extracted above) and since the 2 nd respondent passed orders mechanically and in a routine manner, the matter could be remitted back to the respondent No.2. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 9. Taking into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and, c) The contents of the rejection order issued by the respondent No.2 dated 21.03.2022 to the petitioners upholding the findings of the previous committee, which gave rise to the speaking orders, dated 18.02.2020. d) The order of this Court, dated 09.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.11825 of 2021 & batch (referred to and extracted above) The writ petition is allow ed and the impugned rejection order of the respondent No.2 Lr.No.CGM(HRD) / GM(Per)/ AS(Pers&Ser)/ PO-A/ 214- A2/ 2022-1 dated 21.03.2022 issued to the petitioners is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for consideration of the subject issue afresh in true compliance of the directions of this Court dated 09.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.11825 of 2021 and batch within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance to law , in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate reasoned orders, duly considering petitioners’ requests for appointment as Junior Lineman and communicate the said decision to the petitioners. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.