ORDER : ( SUREPALLI NANDA, J. ) Heard Sri M.V.Rama Rao, 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in not considering and appointing the petitioners as Junior Lineman on par with the candidates who are appointed as Junior Lineman in the year 2007 with all consequential benefits of pay, regularisation of service and further promotions and rejecting their cases vide Lr. No. CGM (HRD)/ AS (Per & Ser)/ PO-A/1-A2/2022-2, Lr. No. CGM ( HRD)/ AS (Per & Ser)/ PO-A/1-A2/2022- 14, Lr. No. CGM (HRD)/AS (Per & Ser)/ PO-A/1- A2/2022-10 and Lr. No. CGM (HRD)/ AS (Per & Ser)/PO-A/1-A2/2022-3 as illegal and arbitrary consequently direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioners as Junior Lineman on par with the candidates who are appointed as Junior Lineman in the year 2007 with all consequential benefits of pay, regularisation and further promotions and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they were working as Contract Junior Linemen since 2001 with the requisite qualifications. In the year 2006, DISCOMs issued notifications for regular JLM posts, giving preference to contract workers. The petitioners applied, passed the pole climbing test, and submitted their experience certificates. However, their names were left out of the selection list due to the concerned Divisional Engineers failing to submit proof of their work. Despite repeated representations, the authorities rejected their cases, citing missing records even though a vigilance report confirmed that the lapse was on the part of the Divisional Engineers. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4. The petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.3209 of 2022 and the same is disposed of on 02.02.2022 and the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: “7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4. The petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.3209 of 2022 and the same is disposed of on 02.02.2022 and the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: “7. Having regard to the submissions made as above, since the petitioners in the present writ petition are similarly placed and for the reasons alike as stated by this Court in W.P. No. 11825 of 2021, the impugned rejection order dt. 18.02.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside; and the petitioners are directed to submit fresh representation to the respondents seeking appointment as Junior Linemen within two (02) weeks mentioning the details as to the period of their employment on contract basis with the power utility companies. Upon the petitioners submitting the representation, the respondents shall constitute the committee as submitted before this court expeditiously within the time frame as noted in the order in W.P. No. 11825 of 2021 to verify the details furnished by the petitioners and issue appointment orders, wherever found eligible and also communicate its decision with reason wherever petitioners are found not eligible for being appointed. 8. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” 5. The respondent No.2 - Chief General Manager (HRD) TSSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad addressed letters vide Lr. No. CGM (HRD)/ GM(Per)/ AS (Per & Ser)/ PO-A/ 1-A2/ 2022-2, Lr. No. CGM ( HRD)/ GM(Per)/ AS (Per & Ser)/ PO-A/ 1-A2/ 2022-14, Lr. No. CGM (HRD)/ GM(Per)/ AS (Per & Ser)/ PO-A/ 1-A2/ 2022-10 and Lr. No. CGM (HRD) GM(Per)/ AS (Per & Ser)/ PO-A/ 1- A2/ 2022-3, dated 18.01.2023 to the petitioners herein observing as under: “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. 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 you have passed the pole climbing test conducted during the period from 02.06.2007 to 06.06.2007, the selection committee did not consider your candidature, since you failed to substantiate with record proof that you are eligible to be considered under the contract labour category. The selection committee further found that you are not within the zone of consideration in the other category i.e., fresh candidate. Therefore the selection committee did not include your name 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. Although you have enclosed the copies of record proof along with their representation dated 31-08- 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. You have challenged the Speaking Orders dated 18.02.2020 through W.P.No.3209 of 2022 and the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the same by Order Dated 02.02.2022 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 orders in accordance with law. submitted representation Dated Nil Pursuant to appropriate to the said Orders you have Nil received on 11.02.2022 requesting to consider the Experience Certificate (which was countersigned by the DE and consider the correspondence letters of SE/OP/Nalgonda and also consider the revised selection and consequently to appoint you as Junior Lineman. 4. submitted representation Dated Nil Pursuant to appropriate to the said Orders you have Nil received on 11.02.2022 requesting to consider the Experience Certificate (which was countersigned by the DE and consider the correspondence letters of SE/OP/Nalgonda and also consider the revised selection and consequently to appoint you as Junior Lineman. 4. A Committee was constituted vide Memo.No.CGM(HRD)/ GM(Per)/ AS(Per&Ser)/ PO- A/ 214-A2/ 2009, Dt. 17.01.2022 in pursuance to the Common Orders dated 09.12.2021 in W.P.No.11825 of 2021 and batch to examine the representations of the petitioners in said W.P. 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. 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. 5. Accordingly, Speaking Orders dated 21.03.2022 were issued holding that, since the petitioners did not fulfill the criteria/ conditions stipulated for selection as Contract JLM, they are found not eligible to be appointed as Contract JLM in terms of the Notification. Since your case also stand on the same footing as that of the petitioners in W.P.No.11825 of 2021 whose case was considered by a Committee constituted pursuant to Orders dated 09.12.2021 in W.P.No.11825 of 2021, your case does not require further consideration by constituting another Committee. 6. For the reasons stated above, your representation dated Nil received on 11.02.2022 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 02.02.2022 of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.3209 of 2022.” 6. 6. For the reasons stated above, your representation dated Nil received on 11.02.2022 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 02.02.2022 of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.3209 of 2022.” 6. This Court on perusal of record opines that the impugned rejection orders dated 18.01.2023 issued to the petitioners herein by the 2 nd respondent, in pursuance to the earlier orders of this Court, dated 02.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.3209 of 2022 did not consider the said orders of this Court in true spirit and mechanically passed the impugned orders, dated 18.01.2023 in a routine manner without application of mind rejecting the request of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman 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 rejection orders, dated 18.01.2023 are not in true spirit of the earlier orders of this Court dated 02.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.3209 of 2022 and since the same had been passed 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 petitioner 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 earlier orders of this Court passed in favour of the petitioners, dated 02.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.3209 of 2022 (referred to and extracted above) d) The contents of the rejection orders issued by respondent No.2 dated 18.01.2023 to the petitioners upholding the findings of the previous committee mechanically ignoring the orders of this Court, dated 02.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.3209 of 2022. The writ petition is allowed and the subject issue is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for consideration of the request of the petitioners for appointment to the post of contract Junior Lineman afresh again in true compliance of the directions of this Court dated 02.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.3209 of 2022(referred to and extracted above) without reference to the impugned rejection orders, dated 18.01.2023 issued to the petitioners herein 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 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners pertaining to the request of the petitioners for appointment as Junior Lineman on par with the candidates who are appointed as Junior Lineman in the year 2007 with all consequential benefits. However, 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.