HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 1101 OF 2011 Between: APSRTC represented by its Depot Manager, Srikakulam-I Depot and one another ………….Appellants AND The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court represented by its Presiding Officer and one another ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Appeal is by the APSRTC against the order rendered by the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the Writ Petition by his order dated 24.6.2009. Brief facts of the case are that the second respondent at the time of recruitment as a Casual Driver, submitted his 5th class record sheet for the purpose of determining his date of birth and as he fulfils the age qualification, he was appointed as a driver. Thereafter, it came to light that the same is a bogus certificate and he never studied 5th class. Therefore, on the basis of the same, the second respondent was kept under suspension and a charge memo was also issued, and after holding an enquiry he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent approached Labour Court vide I.D.No. 92 of 1997 and the Labour Court ordered reinstatement by setting aside the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC preferred Writ Petition and a learned Single Judge dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed by APSRTC. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the second respondent joined in the Organization by producing a bogus school certificate, which amounts to continuous misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. For appointing any individual as a driver, there was no educational qualification required and the only requirement for the purpose of appointment of any individual as a driver is that he should be able to read and write. The study certificate produced by the second respondent is only for the purpose of determining the age. Therefore, when there is no educational qualification required for appointment of driver, the learned Single Judge rightly observed that the Labour Court has gone in detail into the aspect that the job of Driver does not require any educational qualification, and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, we see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. . ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J DATE: 14.12.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.