IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 19954 of 2000 Between: P.Ganapathi Raju, E.376270, S/o.Jagannadha Raju, R/o.Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C., West Godavari Region at Eluru. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tenuku Depot, Tanuku, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein in not Regularising the Service of the Petitioner from the date of his initial Appointment i.e., on 27.12.1997 and now Appointing him as temporary Conductor by de-casualising his Services vide Proc.No.P3/255(13)/2000-RM, W.G.Region Eluru, dt.18.9.2000 is respect of the Petitioner is illegal, unjust and contrary to well established Principles of law and as such liable to be set aside with a Consequential direction to Regularise the Service of the Petitioner w.e.f. 27.12.1997 and to pay the Arrears of Wages forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents : MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 19954 of 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner, who is working as a Conductor in the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not regularizing his services from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from 27th December 1997, as illegal and arbitrary, and also questioned the de-casualisation proceedings issued on 18th September 2000 in proceedings No.P3/255(13)/2000-RM. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Casual Conductor in the year 1992 and he was attached to the Bheemavaram Bus Depot in West Godavari District. While he was discharging his functions as a Casual Conductor on the route from Bheemavaram to Dwaraka Tirumala, a check was exercised by the inspecting oﬃcials, who have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. Therefore, his services were disengaged with eﬀect from 13th December 1994 vide proceedings No.O2/62(57)/94-BVRM. Challenging the same, the petitioner has ﬁled writ petition No.25573 of 1997, which was disposed of on 05.11.1997, directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as a casual conductor without back wages and without continuity of service. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service as a casual conductor and posted at Tadepalligudem Depot, by order dated 27th December 1997. 3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that asmuch as he was selected as a casual Conductor by following the regular procedure as per the recruitment regulations framed by the Corporation under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, he is entitled to be regularized from 27th December 1997, on which date, he was re-engaged in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in writ petition No.25573 of 1997. 4. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it is categorically stated that the very appointment of the petitioner was casual in nature, and even this Court, in writ petition No.25573 of 1997, has issued directions for appointment of petitioner only as a casual Conductor without backwages and without continuity of service. In paragraph 7 of the counter aﬃdavit, in support of their plea that petitioner is not entitled for regularization from 27th December 1997, the respondents have placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case o f Divisional Manager, APSRTC v. P.Lakshmoji Rao[1] and in the case of Regional Manager, APSRTC v. N.Satyanarayana[2]. 5. Having regard to the pleadings on record, the only question which arise for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services from 27th December 1997. 6. It is not in dispute that the very appointment of the petitioner in the service of the respondent- Corporation was pursuant to the notiﬁcation issued for recruitment of casual Conductors. Even while discharging his functions as a casual Conductor, when it was noticed by the respondents that the petitioner was involved in cash and ticket irregularities, his services were dis-engaged, but however, he was reinstated into service pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in writ petition No.25573 of 1997. It is evident from the counter aﬃdavit that the directions issued by this Court also were to the eﬀect that his services were to be re-engaged as a casual Conductor without backwages and without continuity of service. When the initial appointment itself was on casual basis and his reinstatement was also to restore his services as a casual conductor, the petitioner cannot seek regularization of his services from 27th December 1997. 7. As per the procedure in vogue in the Corporation, initial appointments are being made on casual basis, by following a regular procedure, and by maintaining the list of seniority for casual Drivers and Conductors. Their services are being regularized subject to availability of regular vacancies in the Corporation. In that view of the matter, as the very appointment of the petitioner was on casual basis, he cannot seek regularization from 27th December 1997, more so, in view of the directions issued by this Court to restore his services only as a casual Conductor. In addition to the same, in the judgments referred to above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also rejected similar request for regularization of services from the date of initial appointment. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not ﬁnd any ground to grant the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th October 2008 ajr [1] 2004 (2) SCC 433 [2] 2008 (1) SCC 210