IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7203 of 2001 Between: J.S.Vedavathi, W/o.Late B.Chengappa Kuppam, Chittoor Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tirupati Region, Tirupati, Chittoor Dist. .....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 the action of the 2nd respondent in not appointing the petitioner as Sweeper by his proceedings No.E7/E1/329(14)98,R.M.(T), dt. 30.9.99 Under Bread Winner scheme as illegal, and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sweeper/Office Girl Under Bread winner scheme. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.D.KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7203 of 2001 ORAL ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 30-09-1999, in proceedings No.E7/E1/329(14)/98-RM(T) issued by the Regional Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”), Tirupati Region, Tirupati, Chittoor District, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment in any suitable post in the Corporation on compassionate grounds. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, while working as Conductor attached to the Depot Manager, Kuppam Depot of the Corporation, the husband of the petitioner viz., late B.Chengappa, died on 28-04-1998. The petitioner made a representation on 12-08-1998 to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds under the “Bread Winner Scheme”. By the impugned proceedings, dated 30-09-1999, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Corporation on the ground that inasmuch as the petitioner has passed 7th Class and the required qualification for the post of Conductor was 8th Class, she was not eligible for the post of Conductor under the scheme. With regard to the other vacancies of Sweeper etc., it is stated that there are no vacancies and there is a total and absolute ban on direct recruitment to the post of Sweeper. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Corporation denying the various allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that since the petitioner has passed 7th Class only and the required qualification for the post of Conductor is 8th Class, therefore, her case was not considered for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Scheme. It is also stated that the Corporation had imposed ban on direct recruitment and there are no vacancies in the categories of Sweeper etc. However, the petitioner was advised to avail the additional monetary benefit in lieu of appointment as per the scheme. 4. Now, it is well settled that the appointments on compassionate grounds are to be considered within the framework of the scheme. When it is stated that the petitioner is not having the requisite qualification for the post of Conductor, no direction can be given for appointment of the petitioner as Conductor in the absence of any exemption for requisite qualification. Further, in view of the policy decision taken by the Corporation, imposing ban on direct recruitment as regards the other vacancies, no direction can be issued to the Corporation for appointment of the petitioner under the scheme. This issue is considered by a Division Bench of this Court in a recent judgment in ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. VALLURU VENKATA NARAYANA[1] wherein it is held that no direction can be given contrary to the policy when the policy is a bonafide one. 5. Therefore, in view of the judgment referred to above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. However, it is made clear that since the petitioner is entitled for additional monetary benefit, it is open to her to make a representation seeking monetary benefit and on such application being made, the respondents shall consider the same with regard to entitlement of the petitioner for additional monetary benefit, as per the applicable circulars, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of such application. 7. Subject to above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 01-12-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7203 of 2001 01-12-2008 Msr [1] 2008 (3) ALT 5 (D.B.)