IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No. 23543 of 1998 Between: D.V.Subba Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, R/o. Vetapalem, Prakasam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.,State Road Transport Corporation, Rep.by it's Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Ongole, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 Order, Direction, or Writ, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner before making recruitment from outsiders as arbitrary, capricious and violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court and direct the Respondent -Corporation to appoint the petitioner as Conductor with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K.SRINIVAS RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner before making recruitment from outsiders, as arbitrary, capricious and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the order passed by this court and to direct the respondents corporation to appoint him as conductor with all consequential benefits. 2. According to the petitioner, he worked as conductor on a bus bearing No.AAN 7909 belonging to a private operator, on the route: Karumanchi-Ongole (via Marlapadu). In view of nationalization of all the bus routes, the respondents-corporation formulated a scheme for absorption of those employees who were displaced consequent on the nationalization of the bus routes. As per the circular issued by the respondents-corporation, three drivers and two conductors are to be selected for absorption against each bus. Though he gave several representations to the respondents-corporation to consider his case for absorption as a conductor on regular basis, no steps were taken on his representations. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.19271 of 1988 before this Court seeking his absorption as conductor in the respondents- corporation and this Court directed the respondents-corporation to consider his case for absorption along with the material evidence produced by him. Without considering his case, the respondents- corporation is making efforts to recruit outsiders. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondents-corporation filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that the vehicle No.AAN 7909, on which the petitioner worked as per his affidavit, was not displaced at the time of nationalization, but one vehicle bearing No.AAN 7907 was displaced, which used to ply on the route: Karumanchi-Motumala via Ongole, and the petitioner did not work on the said vehicle. The departmental selection committee selected five displaced employees worked on the vehicle No.AAN 7907 and absorbed them. Subsequently, one more conductor was also appointed as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.3894 of 1989. Thus, the quota earmarked was exhausted with the appointment of two drivers and four conductors. Subsequently, in compliance of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.19271 of 1988 filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was called for interview on 31.07.1989 and after re-examining all the original certificates, it was found that he was not a genuine displaced employee on the vehicle No.AAN 7907 and accordingly his claim for absorption into service was rejected. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 4. Though the respondents-corporation filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition on 05.04.1999, the petitioner did not choose to file a reply affidavit so far. Therefore, the assertions made in the counter affidavit against the petitioner are construed to be true. In view of the same and as the nationalization of all the bus routes had taken place long back, this Court finds no merits in this writ petition and hence the relief sought for cannot be granted. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 23rd June, 2009. cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No : 23543 of 1998 (Dismissed-NC) 23rd June, 2009 CBS