THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.1348 OF 2011 DATED: 27-04-2011. Between J.Naga Babu … Petitioner And 1.The APSRTC, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.1348 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not selecting the petitioner for the post of Sramik as erroneous, illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as Sramik by considering him as local candidate. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner completed ITI in Motor Mechanic Course and also Apprenticeship Training in APSRTC, Eluru Depot and passed Trade Test. In pursuance of notification issued by the corporation for appointment of Sramiks, he submitted application along with required documents. The 2nd respondent issued letter directing him to appear on 05-01-2011 with original certificates and accordingly, he went to the office and submitted documents viz., SSC certificate, ITI certificate, Apprenticeship Certificate, Community, Nativity and Date of Birth certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Eluru and Residential Certificate issued by the Tahsildar. As per the directions of the 2nd respondent, he produced residential certificate for last 26 years issued by Tahsildar, Eluru. The personnel of 2nd respondent office received the documents and informed him that they will verify and complete the selection process. He secured 89 marks in the selection process for the post of Sramik. Thereafter, 2nd respondent published selection list on 08-01- 2010 wherein his name was not enlisted. He learnt that a person who secured 80 marks in the selection process in open category under local category was selected. Immediately, he approached 2nd respondent authority and requested to give reason for not selecting him to the said post in spite of his merit. He was informed that his candidature was treated as non local as he has not submitted study certificate for 4th to 7th class. As he studied up to 7th class in a private school, it is not possible for him to produce the same. In the call letter the respondent authorities directed him to produce latest residential certificate for not less than 7 years issued by the concerned revenue officer and he submitted the same from time to time. Therefore, in not considering the candidature of the petitioner as local is erroneous. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner failed to produce study certificate so as to claim local candidate and therefore, his case was considered in the non local and he has not come up in the zone for consideration and therefore, question of appointing him does not arise. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the call letter issued by the respondent would go to show that two options were given namely either to produce study certificate preceding four years of 10th class or latest nativity/residence certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, that accordingly, the petitioner submitted latest residence certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and without taking the said certificate into consideration, the respondents erroneously treated him as non-local and hence, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that because the petitioner has not produced necessary nativity certificate, he has been rightly treated as non-local, that as he was not come up for consideration, he was not selected and therefore, there are no grounds to issue any direction. 6. It is specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the petitioner that he submitted residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar Eluru. That averment has not been denied or disputed in the counter affidavit by the respondents. Once the averment has not been denied or disputed or uncontroverted, it can be said that the said averment is admitted. The averments in the affidavit would go to show that the petitioner produced residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar. Copy of the residence certificate enclosed to the affidavit would go to show that for the last 10 years, the petitioner was residing in H.No.6B-2-54/2, Southern Veedhi, Ponangi Road, Eluru. Therefore, this certificate is in accordance with law and it fulfills the requirement in the call letter issued by the respondents. Therefore, the respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner as local candidate. 7. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two local candidates are not fit for the posts of Sramiks and therefore, two posts are vacant. He further stated that two more posts are also not filled up. Therefore, there are total four posts of Sramiks available with the respondents. That has to be decided by the respondents in accordance with law. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Sramik as local candidate provided notified vacancies are not filled up and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the order to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 27-04-2011 Hsd