IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 36775 of 1998 Between: P.Srinvias Rao S/o Gangaiah R/o Elchuru Village, Santamaguluru (Mandal) Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Prakasam Region , Ongole, Prakasam District 2 The Chairman Selection Committee , Ongole Office of the Regional Manger, Prakasam, Regional A.P.S.R.T.C., Ongole 3 Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad 4 Additional Licensing Authority , Guntur, Guntur District 5 Licensing Authority, Narsaraopet, Guntur District. 6 Additional Licensing Authority , Ongole Prakasam District .....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 a Writ, Order or directions, preferabley a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in deleting the name of the petitioner from the panel of drivers vide his final order in No.E1/684(1)/98- RM(O), dt. 16/12/1998, as illegal, void contrary to law and is against the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as the Trainee Driver for the ends of Justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.BRAHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following Order: Questioning the action of the first respondent in deleting the name of the petitioner from the panel of drivers, vide final order dated 16-12-1998, as illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice, and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to permit him to continue as a trainee driver, the present writ petition is filed. Facts, in brief, are that, pursuant to a notification issued by the respondent-Corporation inviting applications to the posts of drivers, the petitioner also applied for the said post and was called for interview on 01-04-1998. Petitioner was asked to undergo a physical test, and on examining the documents furnished by him including the driving licence, the Interview Committee permitted him to attend the driving test held on 17-04- 1998. On his being selected in the said test, he was declared, vide proceedings dated 05-05-1998, to have been selected along with other candidates. The petitioner was called upon on 29-07- 1998 to work in Tirupathi region as a driver and, on reporting for duty on 30-07-1998, he was assigned the job of a driver at Puttur depot, Tirupathi region. The petitioner continued to serve the respondent-Corporation till 21-09-1998. He received a call letter from the Zonal Staff Training College, Nellore to attend training and he underwent training as driver. While matters stood thus, the respondent-Corporation issued a notice dated 31-10-1998 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his name should not be deleted from the panel of drivers in view of his having produced a bogus driving licence to gain employment. On receipt of petitioner’s explanation dated 11- 11-1998, he was permitted to undergo training till 28-11-1998. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his representations on 05-12- 198, 09-12-1998 and 17-12-1998, whereby he handed over his original certificates including the driving licence issued by respondents 4, 5 and 6. Petitioner submits that respondents 4, 5 and 6, in their counter affidavit, had mentioned the petitioner’s licence particulars and had stated that the licence issued in the petitioner’s favour was not bogus but was genuine. Petitioner would refer to the certificates, issued by the fourth respondent dated 02-12-1998 and 14-12-1998; the fifth respondent dated 01- 12-1998 and the sixth respondent dated 07-12-1998. Petitioner would contend that, in addition to his existing licence for driving a goods vehicle/heavy vehicle, the Additional Licensing Authority, Chirala, Prakasam District had also issued a licence for heavy transport/passenger vehicle on 17-03-1998 and, despite furnishing all documents, the respondents had, without appreciation of facts, passed the impugned order dated 16-12-1998 deleting his name from the panel of selected candidates. It is necessary to note that, in the impugned proceedings dated 16-12-1998, the Regional Manager had observed that the petitioner’s explanation was not convincing and it was only after conducting proper verification that the ZV & SO, Nellore, had informed that the driving licence produced by the petitioner was bogus. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent- Corporation, these facts are reiterated. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 4 and 5, the fifth respondent- Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, R.T.A., Guntur, stated that the petitioner had applied for a light motor vehicle driving licence on 15-07-1987 and, on his passing the test, driving licence No.4372/DL/1987 was issued on 15-07-1987 in his favour to drive light motor vehicles only. It is further stated that, subsequently, the petitioner changed his residence to Guntur District on 21-03-1990, that he had obtained a badge on heavy goods vehicle, and an endorsement on the licence on production of a driving school certificate from Sri Sai Motor Driving School, Narasaraopet, that he had passed the test conducted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector on 16-05-1990 and as per the history sheet maintained by the Additional licensing Authority, Narasaraopet, the said licence was renewed on 16-07-1990 valid from 15-07-1990 to 14-07-1993. Petitioner, thereafter, changed his residence to Guntur again from 22-02-2000 and had obtained L.L.R. for a heavy transport vehicle valid from 22-11-2004 to 21- 05-2005 from the Licensing Authority, Guntur. In the additional counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 and 5, it is stated that a driving licence was obtained by the petitioner on 15-07-1987 for light motor vehicles, on 16-05-1990 for heavy goods vehicle, and on 15-01-2005 for heavy transport vehicle, which had been renewed till 14-07-2005, that the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of licence for heavy transport vehicle on 12-01-2005 and that a permanent licence had been granted to the petitioner on 15- 01-2005 valid till 14-07-2005 and, after the expiry of the validity period, the petitioner had not paid the requisite fee and had not made any application for renewal of licence. Sri M.Brahma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that subsequent thereto, the petitioner had complied with the requirements and that his licence for heavy goods vehicle, heavy transport vehicle and light motor vehicles, was renewed till 11-02-2011. Learned counsel would submit that, on account of the change in the petitioner’s residence, the competent authority had erroneously intimated the respondent- Corporation of the petitioner possessing an invalid driving licence resulting in the Corporation presuming that the licence submitted by the petitioner was bogus. Learned counsel would submit that the counter affidavit filed by the transport officials would show that the petitioner had a genuine and valid driving licence at the time when final orders were passed by the respondents on 16-12- 1998. The fact that the petitioner’s licence has been renewed has also been accepted by the learned Government Pleader for Transport. As to whether the petitioner possessed a valid driving licence, enabling him to be appointed as a driver in APSRTC, when the respondents passed the impugned order, whether the licence has been renewed periodically etc. are all matters which are required to be examined by the respondent-Corporation and are not matters for this Court to adjudicate in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the very appointment of the petitioner as a driver was subject to production of a valid driving licence, the respondent-Corporation was well within its rights to have his driving licence verified and satisfy itself that the said licence is genuine. Since the matter is kept pending for more than a decade and the petitioner, according to Sri M.Brahma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been unjustly denied appointment despite possessing a valid driving licence, ends of justice would be met if the impugned order dated 16-12-1998 is set aside and the respondent- Corporation is asked to re-examine the genuineness of the petitioner’s driving licence and take an appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the question regarding the validity of the driving licence will have to be examined in relation to the date of his initial appointment as a driver and, if he is found to possess a valid driving licence as on that date, he cannot be denied appointment as a driver on the ground that he is now age barred. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________ 25-02-2008 usd ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Prakasam Region , Ongole, Prakasam District 2 The Chairman Selection Committee , Ongole Office of the Regional Manger, Prakasam, Regional A.P.S.R.T.C., Ongole 3 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad 4 The Additional Licensing Authority , Guntur, Guntur District 5 The Licensing Authority, Narsaraopet, Guntur District. 6 The Additional Licensing Authority , Ongole Prakasam District 7 2CCs to GP for Transport, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 8 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KCS}