IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 11724 of 2006 Between: N. Lakshmipathi S/o. M. Narasimha Murthy Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman & Managing DIrecgor, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, A.P. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor District, A.P. .....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 to issue an order, direction or a writ more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not selecting the petitioner for the post of Conductor Vacancies in the recruitment held on 25-4-06 vide Notification No. SA 2/634(1)06-ED K &N, dt. 7-3-06 as arbitrary, illegal, without application of mind, unjust, discriminatory being violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the constitution of India and to set aside the orders by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner as selected and take steps for appointing him to the said post after completion of necessary training and pass such other or further orders deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KRISHNA DEVAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.11724 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in not selecting the petitioner for the post of Conductor in the recruitment held on 25.4.2006 in pursuance of the Notification dated 7.3.2006 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It appears, petitioner is a native of Peddakaluva village, Chittoor district. He had passed SSLC examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Tamilnadu, with Tamil as first language. In pursuance of the impugned notification dated 7.3.2006, he applied for the post of Conductor. According to the petitioner, he had passed SSLC examination, which is equivalent to the one prescribed in the notification i.e. S.S.C. In fact, subsequently he also passed SSLC with Telugu as first language from Board of Secondary Education, Tamilnadu. The learned counsel for petitioner states that though the petitioner secured 86% marks (inclusive of bonus marks), his case was not considered for appointment, whereas the candidates who got 81% were considered for the same. He further states that insofar as Telugu language is concerned, no doubt petitioner passed SSLC with Tamil as first language, but subsequently he also passed Telugu as one of the subjects and that he also know reading and writing Telugu, therefore there was no hurdle in the way of respondents in appointing the petitioner as Conductor. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents Mrs.W.V.S.Rajeswari strenuously contended that the petitioner who obtained SSLC from the Board of Secondary Education, Tamilnadu with Tamil as first language and who does not know reading and writing Telugu, is not entitled to be considered for appointment as Conductor in view of Circulars of the Corporation. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. It is a fact that the recruitment of Conductors is based on the marks obtained by them in the SSC examination after deducting the language marks. Once this is so, the important aspect needs to be seen is whether the petitioner knows reading and writing Telugu. In fact, petitioner obtained 59 marks in Telugu language in the examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Tamilnadu, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not know reading and writing Telugu and he will not be able to perform the duties of Conductor. The purpose of the circular is not to eliminate the persons who do not know reading and writing Telugu, but it is only to ensure that the Conductor in Andhra Pradesh knows reading and writing Telugu. Since the petitioner has qualified and obtained 59 marks in Telugu language, the respondents ought not to have rejected his case. Once the marks obtained in the languages have no criteria for the purpose of selection, petitioner being meritorious, ought not to have been denied employment. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for consideration for being appointed as Conductor in the Respondent Corporation. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment as Conductor in any of the existing vacancies and pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 7.11.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.11724 of 2006 7.11.2008