IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 19397 of 2001 Between: M.Nagaraju, S/o.Nagaiah, R/o.Podili, Prakasham District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, City Region, JBS, Picket, 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 will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in not appointing the Petitioner as Driver Grade-II as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unfair and consequently direct the Respondent to appoint the Petitioner as a Driver Grade-II. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD (SC FOR A.P.S.R.T.C.) The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- corporation. 2. The petitioner, who is an applicant in the process of selection, for appointment as a driver, conducted by the respondent, filed this writ petition, inter alia, seeking a mandamus initially against the action of the respondent in not appointing him as a driver, grade-II, and subsequently, in view of the order of rejection, the prayer has been amended to assail the orders dated 20-11-2001. 3. The main case of the petitioner is that after due procedure and selection to the post of Driver Grade-II, and as per the direction of the authorities of the respondent Corporation, he has produced his original licence. It is his case that initially he obtained licence at Vijayawada and subsequently it was transferred to Hyderabad, and thereafter it again transferred to Vijayawada due to shifting of his family. In pursuance of the letter dated 24-04-2001 of the respondent with regard to furnishing of correct details of his licence, the petitioner made representations to the Regional Transport Officer at Vijayawada and Hyderabad and after receiving reply letters dated 29-05-2001 from the Regional Transport Officer, at Vijayawada and Hyderabad, stating that the petitioner was holding required licence at the relevant point of time, submitted a representation dated 03-06-2001 to the respondent along with copies of the said letters dated 29-05-2001. In spite of the same, his case was not considered. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is only for want of proper particulars the petitioner’s case remained unconsidered. 5. Having considered the submissions made and also on perusal of the material available on record, the only question which has to be considered is as to whether the petitioner is holding a valid licence. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner appeared for selection and he has been selected and he was called upon to produce particulars in regard to holding of licence. The case of the petitioner is that initially he was holding a licence at Vijayawada and subsequently it was transferred to Hyderabad and vice versa, and when he sought particulars about his driving licence, partial particulars were furnished by the authorities, and in regard to other particulars it was stated that the record relating to his driving licence was in torn condition, even as per the enquiries made by the respondent itself. In view of the same, it cannot be said that there is any falsity in regard to the licence as submitted by the petitioner. Further it is now represented that the endorsement, which the petitioner has obtained, and also subsequent renewal which has not been brought to the notice of the respondent, would also go in his favour. 7. In the circumstances, it is apt to direct the petitioner to submit latest particulars and also the factum of subsequent renewal to the notice of the respondent and on receipt of which the respondent shall consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. Be that as it may, even on record there is nothing to show that licence, as sought to be relied on by the petitioner, is in any way doubtful. 8. In the circumstances, writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 20-11-2001 and the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s case afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. It shall be open for the petitioner to furnish the latest particulars obtained from the Vijayawada office and also the factum of renewal to the respondent, which shall also be taken into consideration while passing the orders. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. Dated 10-03-2005. skmr That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice, on this Thursday, the Tenth Day of March Two Thousand and Five. ..... REGISTRAR To 1. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, City Region, JBS, Picket, Hyderabad. 2. 2 CD copies