IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6116 of 2000 Between: T.Jaipal Reddy, S/o. Rayapu Reddy, R/o. 2-709/7/21-A, Gandimalkapur, Near VBG Garden, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Personnel Officer-II, Head Office, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 3 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Depot Manager, Midhani Depot, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings No. PD1/255(20)/99-PO.II dated 1-7-1999 issued by the second Respondent and consequent proceedings no.P1/Estt./PP-MDN dated 7-7-99 issued by the third Respondent in regularising service of the petitioner in the post of conductor and directing him for medical checkup on the ground that he was selected to the post of Conductor as arbitrary, illegal. unjusst, contrary to law, in violation of Regulations of the Corporation, in violation of Principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to regularise his service in the post of Junior Assistant (P) only and to pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the Proceedings, dated 01.07.1999, issued in Proceedings No.PD1/255(20)/99-PO.II, by the 2nd respondent/Personnel Officer-II, seeking the 3rd respondent/Depot Manager, Midhani, to send the petitioner for medical check-up, and has further questioned the Proceedings, dated 07.07.1999, issued by the 3rd respondent/Depot Manager, Midhani, in Proceedings No.P1/Estt./PP-MDN, asking the 2nd respondent to take further action in the matter. 2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under : Initially, the petitioner was appointed as a Traffic Assistant on contract basis, by an order dated 18.07.1991, passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.ARTSCO/Recruitment/91, and he worked as such till 1994. Thereafter, as the Traffic Assistant posts were not in operation, the 1st respondent has issued Proceedings No.PD1/684(2)/94-DY.M(P).II, dated 29.03.1994, whereby, the petitioner, along with seven other employees, were transferred to Bhagyanagar Region, for utilization of their services as Junior Assistants (Personnel), and he worked in the said post till 1999. Subsequently, the impugned orders, dated 01.07.1999 and 07.07.1999 were passed, directing the petitioner for medical check up for appointment to the post of Conductor. The contention of the petitioner is that he had never opted for the post of Conductor and that he had never attended any interview for the said post, but the respondents have erroneously directed him for medical test through the impugned orders. Therefore, he seeks to quash the impugned orders, and prays for directions to the respondents to regularise his services, only in the post of Junior Assistant (Personnel). 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Traffic Assistant on contract basis, by an order dated 29.03.1994, and thereafter, his services were utilized as Junior Assistant (Personnel), on condition that he should acquire the qualification of typewriting (lower). The petitioner did not acquire any such qualification, but however, he continued to work as such. When the respondents have taken a decision to consider the cases of Traffic Assistants for appointment as Conductors on regular basis, the petitioner has attended for interview on 13.05.1998 before the Selection Committee, and the Selection Committee, after considering the candidature of petitioner, has selected him to the post of Conductor, subject to medical examination. However, the petitioner did not appear for the medical test, and further, he has absented himself from duties. Therefore, a charge sheet, dated 27.09.1999 was issued to him, by framing the following two charges : “i) For having failed to report at PO-II, Head Office, inspite of received the directing letter from this office on 7-7-1999 and failed to go for Medical examination for A2 category i.e. for the post of Conductor and thus deviating the instructions given to him. ii) for having unauthorizedly absented from 8-7- 1999 to till date”. The said charge sheet was sent to the residential address of the petitioner, which was returned unserved, with an endorsement “No such person in this house”, and therefore, the same was displayed in the notice board for a period of 7 days, but there was no response from the petitioner. Therefore, an inquiry was ordered into the charges levelled against the petitioner, by appointing an inquiry officer, and the petitioner was informed of the same by a letter dated 28.10.1999. The petitioner has filed his explanation to the charges levelled against him. On considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, the inquiry officer has conducted the inquiry and submitted his report, holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Basing on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and thereafter, he was removed from service. 4. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the petitioner was not directly appointed to the post of Junior Assistant (Personnel), and that the said vacancy was not at all notified. The petitioner was appointed as Traffic Assistant, and even in the said post, he was appointed only on contract basis. When the respondents have decided to consider the cases of Traffic Assistants for appointment as Conductors, the petitioner has attended the interview conducted by the Selection Committee on 13.05.1998, in which, he was selected subject to medical examination, but however, the petitioner did not report for medical test pursuant to his selection, and he was not even attending to his duties thereafter. 5. In the absence of any regular appointment to the post of Conductor, merely basing on the initial orders dated 29.03.1994, appointing the petitioner in the post of Traffic Assistant on contract basis, he cannot seek any directions for regularization of his service. Though he was appointed initially on contract basis, when he was posted as Junior Assistant (Personnel), subject to condition of attaining the typewriting qualification, he did not acquire the said qualification. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to grant the relief as prayed for. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th February 2009. ajr