IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS. 2178 of 2006 and 1435 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NOS. 2178 of 2006: Between: N.Vandanam, E-505794, Conductor, APSRTC,Markapur Depot, S/o.N.George R/o.Markapur, Prakasam district ..... PETITIONER AND The APSRTC., rep.by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.R2/785(1)/2000 HRD dated 27.12.2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the post of Traffic Apprentice Supervisor Trainee as illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice and violative to the orders of Hon`ble High Court in WP.No.10585/2000 dated 20.8.2000 dated 20.8.2005 and also contrary to the Art.14 and 16 of the constitution of India consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner in pursuance of the Notification dated 13.9.93 with all benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.A.K.MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY *** WRIT PETITION NO : 1435 of 2009 Between: N. Vandanam, E 505794 COnductor APSRTC, Markapur Depot, S/o. N. George R/o. Markapur, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the Notification NO. R2/684(20)/2008 -R&T dt. 21-11-2008 calling for the applications for the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee )/Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) from the eligible departmental candidates and not complying the directions of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 10585/2000 dt. 20-8- 2005 and not appointing the petitioner as Traffic Apprentice Trainee as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 10585/2000 dt. 20-8-2005 under the Notification dt. 13-9-1993 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.A.K.MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed by N.Vandanam assailing the action of the respondent Corporation in rejecting his claim for the post of Traffic Apprentice Supervisor Trainee and also issuance of Notification No.R2/684(20)/2008-R&T, dated 21.11.2008. More precisely, W.P.No.2178 of 2006 is filed assailing the action of the respondent Corporation in rejecting the application of the petitioner for the post of Traffic Apprentice Supervisor Trainee; and W.P.No.1435 of 2009 is filed assailing the action of the respondent Corporation in issuing Notification No.R2/684(20)/2008-R&T, dated 21.11.2008 calling for applications for the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee)/Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee). 2. This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier the petitioner along with one M.Venkatesulu filed W.P.No.10585 of 2000 when their case was not considered for the post of Traffic Apprentice Supervisor Trainee. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 20.08.2005 with the following direction: “However, considering the fact that the petitioners are qualified in both the written examination and interview, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically in the existing or future vacancies if any available in the Corporation.” The petitioner filed a contempt case being C.C.No.1407 of 2005 complaining disobedience of the order dated 20.08.2005 passed in W.P.No.10585 of 2000. The said contempt case came to be closed on 03.01.2006. The respondent issued proceedings dated 27.12.2005 whereunder the petitioner has been informed that recruitment is not been taken up in view of the ban imposed by Act 2 of 1994. Assailing the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2178 of 2006. The respondent Corporation issued Notification No.2/684(20)/2008-R&T, dated 21.11.2008 calling for applications for the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee)/Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) from the eligible departmental candidates. The petitioner filed W.P.No.1435 of 2009 assailing the same. His grievance is that his case is to be considered for appointment to the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee)/Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) before issuing the notification dated 21.11.2008 for filling up the posts of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee)/Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee). 3. The respondent Corporation filed counter-affidavit in W.P.No.2178 of 2006. A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, Law Officer, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter- affidavit that the respondent Corporation issued proceedings dated 27.12.2005 in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.10585 of 2000. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that recruitment has been taken up pursuant to the Notification dated 07.11.1997. But, the petitioner has not appeared for the written examination pursuant to the said notification. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is to be considered in future vacancies pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.10585 of 2000 and without considering his case, issuance of notification dated 21.11.2008 for filling up the posts of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee)/Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) is not legal and proper. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioner has not even applied in pursuance of the notification dated 21.11.2008 and therefore, question of giving preference to the petitioner does not arise. 7. The direction given by this Court in W.P.No.10585 of 2000 is to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically in the existing or future vacancies if any available in the Corporation. The respondent Corporation issued notification dated 21.11.2008 calling for applications for the posts of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee)/Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee). The notification does not indicate that it covers the service quota also. As on this day, no notification has been issued for recruitment to the posts of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee)/Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) for service candidates. Regulation 7 (Section-E, Class-II Services, Operations Department) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Recruitment Regulations, 1966, reads as hereunder: S. No. Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) To be filled by direct recruitment by selection departmental employees possessing the prescribed qualifications may also be considered for selection along with outsiders. 90% of vacancies be filled in by direct recruitment by selection. Balance 10% be filled in by in- service employees who are in possession of qualifications prescribed and put in 5 years of service in APSRTC by selection. In-service employees are given age relaxation as per Regulation 9(2) of APSRTC Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations. Note: In-service employees have to appear for competitive examination conducted for outsiders and should get minimum qualifying marks both in written test and interview for consideration by appropriate Selection Committee. Board Res.No.108/1999, Dt.6.9.1999. Government Lr.No.17957/Tr.III- 2/99-3, Dt.20.9.2000. Notification No.PD-26/2000, Dt.16.11.2000. Case No.R1/684(8)/99-HRD. FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT: The candidate – a) Must be a graduate of a recognized University. b) Must not be more than 25 years of age as on 1st July of the year in which recruitment is made. Period of Training 12 months. The period of training is treated as “Service”. Stipend: To allow minimum of the time scale of Class-II lower level supervisor (Dy. Superintendent – Traffic) without allowances during the training period as stipend. Departmental candidates will be paid the Pay & Allowances according to rules in force. Probation: They will be on probation for one year from the dae they are placed on the job. Note: Deleted the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) from the eligible lists of PHC candidates to apply for the posts as notified vide Notification No.R3/331(14)/ 92-HRD, Dt.31.3.1997 vide Notification No.PD-1/2001, Dt.16.1.2001 (R1/684(2)/2001-HRD) As on this day, the notification which the petitioner impugned in the writ petition relates to direct recruitment i.e. 90% of the vacancies. There is no notification with regard to filling up the 10% of the vacancies from the service candidates. In which case, the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.10585 of 2000 shall hold good. The case of the petitioner has to be considered sympathetically in the existing or future vacancies if any available in the Corporation under service quota. 8. With the above observation, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:04th March, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}