IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22373 of 2000 Between: S.L.C.V.Prasad Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. 4-1-213(1), Kondametla, Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., 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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's case before making fresh recruitments from outsiders as arbitrary, capricious and violation of Art.14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondent corporation to consider the petitioner's case as Conductor with all conseqential beneﬁts 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.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.22373 of 2000 ORDER: 1. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner to the post of Conductor, before making fresh recruitments, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner claims that he was working as a Checker– cum-Conductor on private bus bearing No. AAV 9566. The said vehicle was being plied on the route from Ongole to Konazedu and the same was Nationalized in the year 1987. As a welfare measure, to give immediate employment to the persons, who were working on such Nationalized routes, the Road Transport Corporation has framed a scheme for absorption of two drivers and three conductors, who were working on such routes earlier and whose services were dismissed on account of Nationalization. On the ground that his case was not being considered for such appointments, the petitioner has approached this court twice earlier, by ﬁling with petition Nos. 16703 of 1993 and 23988 of 1995. This court, in writ petition No.23988 of 1995, has granted directions to the following effect: “T he case of the petitioner shall be considered for appointment to the post of conductor by the respondents keeping in view the direction of this court in W.P.No.5186/87 dated 25.08.87 and also in W.P.No.16703/93 dated 23.08.95. T he instances which are furnished by the petitioner where sixth conductor was appointed shall also be kept in view by the respondents while considering the case of the petitioner”. 3. As per the said directions, the departmental selection committee has considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same by order dated 16-12-1997. In the said order, it is stated that selection for the displaced persons who worked on the vehicle bearing No.AAV 9566 was conducted on 31-2-1989. Eight displaced workers, including the petitioner, have appeared before the selection committee. Pursuant to the initial selections made on 26-4-1989, three persons by name K.Danunjaya, V.V.Subba Reddy and K.Yanadirao were appointed as conductors, and one P.Bala Subbareddy and P.C. Rama Rao were appointed as drivers. It is stated that one more person by name K.Rajendraprasad was appointed as a Conductor, pursuant to the orders issued by this court in W.P.No.3654 of 1989. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that he was working as an acting checker which means that he works occasionally, and that he was not a regular employee . Further, it was stated that as there was no vacancy on the vehicle bearing No.AAV 9566, the request of the petitioner could not be considered. 4. The claim of petitioner for out of turn employment, is based on the circular instructions issued by the Corporation. It is stated in the counter affidavit that even as per the circular instructions, in the Nationalized routes, only three conductors and two drivers working on such vehicle alone, are eligible for consideration. Further, it is stated that one additional person was appointed pursuant to the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.3654 of 1989. In view of the orders dated 16-12-1997 passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner was not considered. The out of turn employment sought for by the petitioner is as per the scheme framed by the Corporation, and when it is the case of the respondents that appointments were made as per the said scheme to the maximum ceiling on the vehicle bearing No. AAV 9566, no further direction can be granted for appointment of the petitioner. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ​_________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 29-08-2008 Stp