THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.28471, 28906 and 29037 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The subject matter in all the three writ petitions is one and the same and hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioners passed ITI Courses more than a decade ago. The APSRTC issued notification, dated 05.10.1999, inviting applications for the posts of Shramiks. The petitioners and vast number of other candidates applied. After scrutinizing the applications and conducting interviews, the Corporation selected the petitioners herein, wherein in some cases orders of appointment were issued, and in others, they were yet to be issued. Recently, the Corporation issued a notification, dated 02.11.2010, inviting applications for the posts of Shramiks. Petitioners contend that the respondents are not justified in issuing the impugned notification, without issuing orders of appointment to the candidates selected in the year 1999-2000. They contend that the orders of appointment were not cancelled by any competent authority, and in some cases, the original certificates were kept with the Corporation itself. On behalf of the respondents, it is stated that though the petitioners were selected, and in some cases appointed as Shramiks, the appointments were set aside by this Court through a common order, dated 29.08.2001 in W.P.No.9426 of 2000 and batch. According to them, this Court found fault with the procedure adopted in the selection process, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh[1]. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the petitioners applied in response to a notification, dated 05.10.1999 and orders of appointment were also issued for some. In W.P.No.9426 of 2000 and batch, the selections were challenged by unsuccessful candidates, on the ground that the Corporation adopted a defective procedure. The bone of contention was the award of different remarks, depending upon the size of the fleet of buses of the organization, in which the candidates have undergone apprenticeship training. That was found fault with and the selections were set aside. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the judgment rendered in the writ petition. On the other hand, the Corporation filed writ appeal No.703 of 2002, feeling aggrieved by certain directions issued therein. The writ appeal was subsequently withdrawn by the Corporation. The result is that the judgment rendered by this Court, in W.P.No.9426 of 2000 and batch has become final. Therefore, it cannot be said that the selection of the petitioners in pursuance of the notification, dated 05.10.1999, is in tact. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23.11.2010. GJ [1] (1995) 2 SCC 1