THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.21833 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondent – the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’) in not regularizing the services of the writ petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e., with effect from 10-01-1997, as arbitrary and unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The case of the writ petitioner is that pursuant to a notification of the Corporation, he was one of the applicants for the post of Driver and the Selection Committee constituted by the Corporation has selected him along with others, for the post of a Driver, but however, instead of appointing the selected candidates on regular basis as Drivers, the Corporation has appointed them as casual Drivers. Perhaps, in the view of the Corporation, it would serve two purposes; (1) the verification of the antecedents of the appointees and the verification of the driving licenses produced by them will consume some time and thereafter, their cases can be taken up for regularization; and (2) the services of the casual Drivers’ services will be watched from two perspectives; (i) promptness in operating the services; and (ii) the careful manner in which the vehicles are operated. But however, the services of the casual Drivers appointed at or about the same time on 10-01- 1997, along with the writ petitioner, have all been regularized with effect from 01-08-1998. Therefore, the services of the writ petitioner ought to have been regularized as well, but instead, his services have been dispensed with as it was initially felt that the writ petitioner has produced a fake driving license. The writ petitioner has immediately lodged a protest in that respect. He has disputed that he did produce a fake driving license and on the other hand, he has pleaded that he has produced a genuine license. That required the Corporation to get the license produced by the writ petitioner verified with the records available with the Licensing Authority. The matter has also been examined by the Vigilance Department of the Corporation. The Licensing Authority as well as the Vigilance enquiry revealed that the driving license produced by the writ petitioner is a genuine one and hence, it is not a fake one. There was no other reason or ground for not regularizing the services of the writ petitioner as a Driver along with others. The initial apprehension that he has produced a fake driving license is what resulted in his initial discharge from service. Now that the apprehension entertained by the management of the Corporation is put at rest, it is only proper that the case of the writ petitioner should be considered for regularization. Further, when all others, who have been appointed as casual Drivers at or about the same time when the writ petitioner herein has been so appointed, have all been regularized with effect from 01-08-1998, the writ petitioner cannot be singled out for a hostile treatment. The regularization of the services of the casual Drivers has been completed pursuant to a policy measure adapted by the Corporation. There is no feature in that policy measure which could distinguish the case of the writ petitioner from the rest of the flock. Therefore, it is only fair and proper that the services of the writ petitioner should be regularized with effect from 01-08-1998. It is needless to observe that with effect from the said date, he is entitled to all other benefits, which a regular Driver would have been entitled to, such as, pay fixation, payment of salary and allowances in the fixed scale attached to the post of Driver and other attendant benefits. Insofar as the payment of back wages is concerned, it is only appropriate that the writ petitioner should make a representation to the appointing authority duly producing the necessary material, which could convince the appointing authority that he has not been gainfully employed anywhere during the interregnum. Based upon consideration of such factors, as to how the period when he was away from service should be regulated, will be decided separately. With this, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 23rd June 2010