THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9716 of 2005 DATED: 27.01.2006 Between: P.Kondal Reddy, s/o Narayan Reddy, R/o Narsingapoor Mandal & Via, Venavanka,Tq. Huzarabad, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep., by its Managing Director and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9716 of 2005 ORDER: The APSRTC issued a notification on 24.04.2000, inviting applications from eligible candidates with a view to fill about one thousand posts of drivers. The petitioner responded to the same and was interviewed by the selection committee on 16.05.2000. He was found suitable and was included in the list of selected candidates at Serial No.745. Orders of appointment were expected to be issued depending on the need and necessity. The petitioner states that several candidates, who were placed in the panel below him, were given orders of appointment, on the sole ground that they joined duty during the general strike in the APSRTC. The petitioner filed W.P.No. 17157 of 2004 before this Court seeking a direction that his case be considered for issuance of posting orders. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.09.2004 directing that the case of the petitioner be considered in the matter of issuance of posting orders on par with the persons who were included in the panel below the petitioner. The Regional Manager, Hyderabad City Region, second respondent herein, passed an order, dated 09.11.2004, rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that he did not join the duty, while the panel was in force. The petitioner challenges the same. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the panel is said to have expired on 03.02.2002, the respondents have appointed the candidates who, are far below in the selection list than the petitioner, and there does not exist any justification or basis for denying the same benefit to the petitioner. He contends that the reasons stated in the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He places reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Vs. Md. Javed Pasha Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner’s turn did not come, by the time the panel expired, and the orders of appointment were issued only to such of the candidates who remained in the panel, as have reported to duty during the strike period. It is the matter of record that the petitioner has been included in the list of selected candidates at Serial No.745. Had the respondents treated the panel after 03.02.2002, as regards the left over candidates, as invalid, there could not have been any plausible objection. They, however, proceeded to appoint many selected candidates irrespective of their place in the selection list, on the sole ground that the candidates have reported to duty during the strike period. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the respondents did not issue any individual intimation to the petitioner, requiring him to report to duty on a particular date. The only means of communication adopted by the respondents was, a general publication in the press and some message through electronic media. Every selected candidate cannot be expected to have access to the said means of propaganda. An identical situation was dealt with by a Divison Bench of this Court in Regional Manager, APSRTC’s case (one supra). It was observed that as long as individual intimation was not issued to a candidate, he cannot be denied the benefit of appointment, once a person below him in the select list was issued orders of appointment. The ratio laid down in that case squarely applies to the facts of this case. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to issue necessary orders of appointment to the petitioner, in case it is found that any candidate below the petitioner in the panel has been issued orders of appointment. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to be accorded the seniority from the date of issuance of order of appointment, and shall not be entitled to claim seniority with others on the ground that they were placed below him, in the panel. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 27.01.2006 sh