IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 18170 of 1996 Between: Ummaneni Venkateswarlu, S/o. Yerraiah, R/o. Lingalapadu, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, Krishna Region, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Conductor in the service of the respondent corporation being the second Senior and Conductor in the nationalised route of Trulapadu to Bellamkondavaripalem bus No. ATS 900 and further direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner as Conductor in the service with effect from the day his juniors are appointed with all consequential benefits of service and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following Order: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation as he was the senior most Conductor on the nationalized route of Trulapadu to Bellamkondavaripalem of bus bearing No.ATS 900. Petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to absorb him as a Conductor with effect from the day his juniors were appointed, with all consequential benefits. Petitioner claims to be the Conductor working on a route which was nationalized in July, 1990. The said vehicle bearing No.ATS 900 hitherto employed two drivers, five conductors, one cleaner and a spare driver. Petitioner states that, among the Conductors, the petitioner and one Sri D.Venkateswara Rao were the senior most. Petitioner claims to have attended the interview conducted by the respondent-Corporation for the post of Conductor in October, 1990, and claims to have been denied employment even though he was the senior most Conductor. Petitioner contends that several others, junior to him, filed writ petitions and, on the basis of the directions of this Court, they were appointed into the service of the respondent- Corporation. Petitioner would seek the relief of being appointed into the services of the respondent-Corporation. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Corporation, it is stated that vehicle bearing No.ATS 900 was displaced due to nationalization with effect from 07-07-1990, that the departmental selection committee met on 04-10- 1990 wherein the petitioner also appeared for selection, that the selection committee is said to have found that the petitioner’s name figured at Sl.No.6 as a spare Conductor and, hence, his claim for absorption was not considered. Respondents would rely on a circular dated 10-11-1983, wherein only two drivers and three Conductors can be absorbed. They would further contend that against a displaced vehicle, two drivers and four Conductors can be accommodated, that the departmental selection committee had absorbed two drivers and three Conductors and, thereafter, absorbed Sri D.Venkateswarlu as the 4th Conductor. According to the respondents, as against the displaced vehicle No.ATS 900, four conductors had already been absorbed and there is no vacancy in the post of Conductor against the said vehicle. Respondents would contend that the entire process of absorption was made in accordance with the circular and the judgment in W.A.No.1252 of 1991 dated 04-12-1991. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation, would contend that the Corporation on account of huge financial losses had taken a policy decision not to absorb displaced Conductors with a view to ensure that the bus ratio was on par with the other transport Corporations in the country. The very fact that the respondents have already absorbed four Conductors, in accordance with the circulars and the division bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1252 of 1991 dated 04-12-1991, and in the light of the fact that the Corporation has been suffering losses and had taken a policy decision not to absorb any more Conductors displaced, on account of nationalization of routes, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. Viewed from any angle, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:23-06-2008 Usd To 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, Krishna Region, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada. 3 Two CD copies