IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 957 of 2009 Between: 1 M.S.M. Basha S/o. Baba Saheb R/o.B. Kothakota (Village and Mandal) Chittoor District. 2 S.F. Raheman S/o. Abbaas Ali, R/o. 11th Ward, 75, Kothagadda Street, Madanapalli Village, Chittoor District. 3 D.K. Basha S/o. Valli Saheb R/o. Darga Street, B. Kothapeta (Village and Mandal) Chittoor District. 4 S. Hyder S/o. Shaik Abdullah Molahalla Cheruvu Road, Madaia Gari Palle (PTM Mandal) Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, 1-Depot, Madanapalle, Madanapalle ( T & M) Chittoor District. .....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 to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to declare the action of the respondent in not following the seniority list by alloting the duties as per the seniority list and alloting the duties to juniors without counselling is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional being Violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 957 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are four in number assailing the action of the respondents in not considering their representations dated 12-1-2009 and 13-1-2009. 2. The petitioners are working as drivers in Madanapally Depot. According to him, senior drivers are to be deputed for long and Ghat roads services. Instead, Junior Drivers are being deputed for the said purpose and therefore, they submitted a representation to the Respondent Corporation and their representation remained unattended which necessitated him to approach this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned standing counsel for APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the junior drivers are being charted for long and ghat roads, without there being any proper training. As seen from the cause title, the petitioners are aged 47 and 48 and they must have put in good number of years service. The petitioners are not able to place on record any Rule where under only senior drivers are to be charted for long and ghat road services. He has not even placed reliance on any rule where under the drivers are required to be trained before they are being deputed on long and ghat roads services. In the absence of any statutory rule, the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be considered. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 27th January, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 957 OF 2009 27th January, 2009.