THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 35389 OF 1998 DATE: 29-1-2008 Between: A. Bachi Reddy … Petitioner And 1. A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad Hyderabad and another ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 35389 OF 1998 ORDER: Seeking a direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioner as a Conductor, or in any other post, as a displaced employee and to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 26.6.1998, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner claims to have worked on private vehicles bearing No.AVB 7374 and APW 6073 as a conductor cum supervisor. Consequent to the nationalization of the routes, the respondent-Corporation evolved a scheme whereby five employees working on each of the displaced bus were required to be absorbed into the services of the APSRTC. According to the petitioner in addition to discharging the functions of a supervisor, he also discharged the duties of a conductor whenever the regular conductor was not available and that he possessed the requisite knowledge and experience to work as a conductor. Petitioner also claims to possess a conductor’s licence and badge said to have been issued by the licensing authority on 12.9.1990 which he claims to have renewed from time to time. Petitioner possesses the qualification of S.S.C. He relies on a certificate issued by the owner of the bus to the effect that the petitioner had worked on the said bus as also a certificate issued by the Labour Officer, Ranga Reddy that he possessed the knowledge and functions of a conductor as on the date of the interview. Petitioner would contend that though he possessed one year ‘s service and was fully eligible, the respondents had absorbed only four displaced persons and that he was also entitled to be absorbed as a conductor or in any other suitable post in the APSRTC. The petitioner submitted a representation on 8.2.1994 requesting the respondent to appoint him as a supervisor or in any other suitable post. Despite his being interviewed by the Selection Committee, he was not appointed and consequently he filed W.P.No.16055 of 1992 which was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to communicate the result of the interview. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20494 of 1994 which was disposed of on 3.4.1998 directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in any suitable vacancy. Consequent thereto the respondent issued proceedings dated 26.6.1998 whereby the petitioner’s candidature, for absorption as a conductor, was rejected According to the petitioner only 4 persons were absorbed i.e., two drivers and two conductors though as per the circular five persons were required to be absorbed by the Corporation. Petitioner would contend that the conclusions arrived at by the respondent that he was not working as a conductor for a minimum period of one year preceding the date of cancellation of the permit of the vehicle and that he had not worked as a driver or a cleaner was untenable. He would contend that he possessed two years experience as per the certificate issued by the owner of the vehicle and that he was discharging his functions as a conductor having sufficient knowledge of issuing tickets etc., and that the condition of minimum service, on the date of cancellation of the permit, was only directory and not mandatory. Petitioner would state that, in similar circumstances, persons who had worked as checkers and who possessed a conductor licence on the date of consideration for appointment to the post were directed by this Court to be considered for absorption as a conductor. Petitioner would rely on a judgment of this Court in P.Bhaskara Reddy v. The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Kakinada[1]. Petitioner would contend that the action of the respondents in rejecting his case was in violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the Counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the owner of the vehicle and the Labour Officer, R.R. District had certified that the petitioner had worked as a Supervisor on the vehicle for a period of two years, that the Corporation had published a notification in leading daily newspapers inviting applications from displaced persons for appointment to the posts of conductors and drivers, that as per the directions of the High Court in W.P.No.16055 of 1992 the petitioner was informed that he was not eligible to be absorbed as against the posts earmarked for displaced employees, as his name was sponsored by the owner of the vehicle as well as the Labour Officer only for the post of Supervisor which was not amongst the posts included in the paper notification, that the conductor’s licence produced by the petitioner on 1.3.1991 was valid only for seven more months, that the petitioner was informed about the said facts through letter dated 3.12.1994 and that pursuant to the directions of this Court, in W.P.No.20494 of 1994, the impugned proceedings were communicated to the petitioner. According to the respondents, the scheme provided for absorption of five displaced persons for each displaced bus for the posts of conductor and drivers only but not as supervisors and that the petitioner, having applied for the post of supervisor, (a post which was not published in the notification), was not eligible. According to the respondents, the order dated 26.6.1998 is a reasoned order, the Corporation in its resolution dated 56/1998 dated 15.5.1998 had resolved that at present the Corporation was not able to absorb displaced employees any more in view of its critical financial position, in view high personnel cost and in view of the fact that the Corporation was making every possible effort to reduce the bus staff ratio on par with other State Transport Undertakings in India and that the Board had resolved to impose a total ban on further absorption and appointment of displaced employees into the service of the Corporation. It is stated that Circular No.PD-61/1998 dated 16.7.1998 was issued by the Vice- Chairman and Managing Director directing all recruiting authorities not to absorb displaced employees of private operators into the Corporation in view of imposition of the ban with effect from 15.5.1998 and, therefore, there was no provision to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption. In the impugned proceedings dated 26.6.1998 the respondents informed the petitioner that the Departmental Selection committee met on 3.7.1991 and perused the documents and certificates produced by the Corporation, that the validity of the conductor’s licence of the petitioner as on 1.3.1991 was only for seven more months and that the petitioner had not put in the minimum service of one year continuously as a conductor as on the date of nationalization, that the Labour Officer, Ranga Reddy had given a certificate to the effect that the petitioner had 2 years service as a Supervisor, that the owner of the bus had also certified that the petitioner had worked on his bus in the capacity of a Supervisor and had two years service, that the petitioner was related to the owner of the bus, that in such circumstances, the Departmental Promotion Committee had not considered the case of the petitioner favourably for appointment to the post of conductor and that the petitioner was informed accordingly. Reference is also made to the Circular dated 10.11.1983 to state that only genuine drivers and conductors, who had put in minimum one year service as on the date of nationalization, were considered for absorption and following this Circular dated 10.11.1983 the Departmental Selection Committee, which met on 3.7.1991, had considered the applications received from displaced persons who had worked on vehicle ABB No. 7374 and had selected two drivers and two conductors and since the petitioner did not work as conductor for the minimum stipulated period of one year preceding cancellation of the permit of vehicle ABB No. 7374 as per the guidelines he was not entitled for absorption into the service of the Corporation as conductor and hence his claim for absorption was rejected. Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had put in more then two years service in the displaced bus and that he had also worked as a conductor when the regular conductor was absent. Learned counsel would state that the mere fact that the conductor’s licence showed that it was valid only for seven more months did not, by itself, mean that the petitioner did not work as a conductor for more than one year. Learned counsel would contend that, even otherwise, this condition could at best be directory and not mandatory and this Court had earlier held that a person who had knowledge of the duties to be discharged by a conductor could also be considered for absorption as a conductor in the APSRTC. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, would contend that the petitioner does not have any right to claim absorption as a displaced employee and that it is only pursuant to a scheme, whereby the Corporation had decided to provide employment to five of the employees hitherto engaged on a private bus, that they were entitled to claim absorption. Learned counsel would state that the conditions stipulated in the scheme for absorption must be strictly adhered to and that it was not open to the petitioner to contend that some of the conditions which required compliance could be given a go-by. Learned counsel would contend that the earlier judgment of this Court in P.Bhaskara Reddy1 would no longer apply to the Corporation in view of the subsequent Circular No.PD-61/1998 dated 16.7.1998 whereby the Corporation had decided not to make any further recruitment in view of its critical financial position. It is not in dispute that the Corporation had framed a scheme whereby it had decided to absorb five employees working in the buses whose routes had been nationalized, i.e., two drivers and 3 conductors. It is also not in dispute that, in so far as the bus in question is concerned, only four persons were absorbed as against the requirement of absorption of five persons. It is in such circumstances, on the direction of this Court that the petitioner’s case be considered, that the respondents have considered his case and rejected his candidature on the ground that he did not put in the minimum service of one year as a conductor. In P.Bhaskara Reddy1, this Court observed: “………In view of the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner was fully aware of the functions of a conductor and had a practical knowledge of the same, but for the reason that he was not doing the job of a conductor, he did not apply for a licence. But, when the route was nationalized, he became unemployed and as such to eke-out his livelihood, he was prepared to even work as a conductor and then obtain conductor’s licence and on the date when he was to be considered for the post of conductor in APSRTC, in the rehabilitation scheme mentioned above, he was fully eligible to hold the post. In the circumstances, I accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and hold that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in the post of Conductor. The 1st respondent shall forthwith absorb the petitioner as conductor as he was displaced on account of the nationalization of the bus route in which he was working. The petitioner shall produce before the 1st respondent his medical fitness certificate and soon after the presentation of the same, he shall be issued with posting orders…..” The respondents in the aforesaid case were directed to absorb a person who had knowledge of the functions of a conductor and had, in fact, not discharged the duties of a conductor. The fact, however, remains that, while the scheme stipulate that a minimum service of one year as a conductor ought to have been put in for a person to be considered for appointment to the said post, the Corporation has the power, in certain circumstances, to relax the said condition, more so, in cases where, as against the stipulated requirement of absorbing five persons from each bus only four were absorbed. One cannot, however, lose sight of the fact that the Corporation has resolved not to absorb any displaced employee in view of its critical financial position and pursuant to the resolution of the Board, the Corporation has issued Circular No.PD-61/1998 dated 16.7.1998 to this effect. Whether the Corporation should continue with the scheme of absorption of displaced employees and whether it should give it a go-by in view of its critical financial position, are all matters which this Court would not sit in judgment in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the Corporation, in its wisdom, decides not to appoint any displaced person for just and valid reasons, it is not for this Court to compel them to do so. The resolution of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, (Resolution No.56/1998 dated 15.5.1998), and the consequent Circular No.PD-61/1998 dated 16.7.1998 are both subsequent to the judgment of this Court in P.Bhaskara Reddy1, (judgment in W.P.No.17000 of 1993 dated 17.2.1994), and as such the petitioner cannot claim absorption when the circumstances which prevailed when the aforesaid judgment was rendered no longer exists. Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is still unemployed, though he was entitled to be absorbed and since the Corporation ought to have absorbed five employees in each displaced bus, a direction should be given to consider his case for absorption, if need be, in relaxation of the rules. In the light of the ban on recruitment no such direction can be given. It is, however, made clear that in case the corporation decides to give a go-by to the ban on absorption of displaced persons, the petitioner’s case for absorption as conductor under the displaced category shall be considered, if need be, in relaxation of the rules in the light of the fact that, as against five persons to be absorbed from each displaced bus, only four persons in the bus in question were absorbed by the Corporation. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________ 29-1- 2008 asp [1] 1994(1) ALT 657