IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12879 of 1999 Between: Yedukondalu s/o. E. Venkataiah, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Medical Dept., Rangareddy district r/o. Medchal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director , Andhra pradesh, State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Manager, Human Resources Development, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Hyderabad Zone - Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad. .....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 pleased to call for records pertaining to the selections conducted by the Respondents herein for the posts of Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) in the Respondent Corporation in pursuance of the Notification dt. 7-11- 1997, issued by the Respondents herein and direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner herein as mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) in the vacancies earmarked for Departmental candidates for Hyderabad Zone in the Respondent Corporation with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits by holding the action of the Respondents here in not appointing the petitioner herein as such in the notified vacancies though he is fully eligible and qualified and hasfaced the interview and though the said vacancies are available, as illegal, arbitrary, bad, irrational, illogical, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India by the issuance of writ, order or Direction (s) essentially in the nature of writ of Mandamus, And pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.NAGENDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO. 12879 OF 1999 ORAL ORDER: Challenging the selection conducted for the post of Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) in the respondent-Corporation and aggrieved by his non-appointment as Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) in the vacancy earmarked for departmental candidates for Hyderabad Zone, the writ petition is filed. The relevant facts are that 29 vacancies of Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) were advertised for the Hyderabad Zone. 10% of these vacancies i.e., 3 vacancies were earmarked for departmental candidates and the rest for direct recruitment. The three vacancies were considered by the respondent-Corporation to have been reserved as under: (1) S.T. Backlog vacancy; (2) O.C. Reserved for Woman; and (3) S.C. Reserved for Woman. The petitioner who was working as a Conductor responded to the recruitment notification dated 7.11.1997 soliciting application for Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee). The notification per se did not specify the reservation, which is now claimed by the respondent-Corporation. However, pursuant to his application the petitioner was called for an interview. He assumed that he was called for interview as a departmental candidate. In the counter affidavit, however, it is pleaded that as the three vacancies earmarked for departmental candidates are set apart for the reserved categories as mentioned above, the petitioner could not have been and was not called for interview as a departmental candidate, but was called for interview only in the general direct recruitment. In such general recruitment the petitioner did not come up for selection and therefore could not be appointed. As a departmental candidate he was not considered as none of the vacancies were unreserved. The petitioner has no case for grant of relief is thus the defence in the counter affidavit. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that in W.P No. 13649/97 by the judgment dated 14.12.1000 a Division Bench of this court had declared that as the State Government had accorded approval on 9.7.1999 for reservation policy for woman, it would not relate back and retrospectively legitimize a selection process earlier made and no reservation could have been made in favour of woman candidate prior to the approval of the Government i..e, 9.7.1999. According to the petitioner since the interviews were held on 27.1.1999 prior to the approval granted by the Government for women reservation, the respondent-Corporation could not have implemented the reservation for woman in the departmental quota for Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) posts. This contention is urged but has not been substantively pleaded. There is no amendment of the pleadings in the main writ petition. Only by an additional reply affidavit dated 26.3.2000 has the petitioner mentioned about the judgment referred to above, and has pleaded that the action of the respondents in reserving OC vacancy for women in the 1997 notification is illegal. In 1999, in the absence of an available ST Women candidate the other two vacancies earmarked for departmental candidates are stated to have been filled up with an OC Woman candidate and an SC Woman candidate. It is inequitable to set aside the appointments made in 1999 at this point of time in 2008. The petitioner is equally responsible for this situation as no care was taken to amend the pleadings in the writ petition challenging the appointments made pursuant to the 1997 notification. The writ petition was filed at the stage when the results of the recruitment were not known. No efforts had been made thereafter to amend the pleadings in the writ petition, to challenge the appointments already made. The two candidates appointed pursuant to the said notification to the OC Woman and SC Woman vacancies were not impleaded either. This is a fatal defect. In the aforesaid circumstances no relief could be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 29.02.2008 --------------------------- Pvsn/Tsnr Justice G.Raghuram