IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18810 of 2000 Between: Shaik Kasimsaheb, S/o. Mabulu Saheb, R/o. H.No. 5-69, Gandhi Bazar, Chandralapadu Post, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Krishna Region, Vijayawada. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Krishna District, Vijayawada. .....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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing the Proc.No.L2/L1/402(112)/92-RM/VJA, Vijayawada dt.20-8-1999 in rejecting my claim for absorption as conductor or for any suitable post contending that already 5 Employee were Employed from the Private Bus into A.P.S.R.T.C., as illegal, unjust and discrimination, contrary to the Division Bench Judgment in W.P.No.5186 of 1987 dt.25-8-1987 and W.A.No.1252 of 1991 dt.4.12.1999 and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article.14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and as such set aside the same with a Consequential direction to the Respondents herein to absorb the Petitioner as 4th Conductor forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 18810 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings, dated 20th August 1999, issued by the 2nd respondent in Procs.No.L2/L1/402(112)/92-RM/VJA, by which, the claim of the petitioner for absorption as a Conductor, is rejected. 2. The petitioner claims beneﬁt of employment as a displaced person on the vehicle bearing No.ATS-990 in view of nationalization of the route from Jaggaiahpet to Penuganchiprolu. But in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondents, it is stated that the said route on which the vehicle bearing No.ATS-990 was being plied, was nationalized on 01.07.1990, and that the claims of 12 persons were considered for appointment with reference to the said bus, and out of them, three drivers and two conductors were appointed. The claim of the petitioner was also considered for appointment, but however, as he was not ﬁt into the scheme, it was rejected. 3. It is further stated in the counter that on earlier occasion also, the petitioner has approached this Court and sought directions for his appointment. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Selection Committee has re-examined the matter and found that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment. 4. As much as the petitioner is seeking employment according to the scheme notiﬁed by the Corporation for the beneﬁt of displaced persons on account of nationalization of certain routes, and as his claim was already considered and rejected by the duly constituted Selection Committee, the petitioner connot now seek any directions for appointment, particularly, when it was found that he was not ﬁt into the scheme. Apart from the rights conferred by the scheme, on no other right, the petitioner can seek employment, more so, when it is stated that only ﬁve persons were found eligible for appointment and the said ﬁve persons were already given employment with reference to the same bus. It is further stated by the respondents in their counter aﬃdavit that by circular instructions No.61/98, dated 16.07.1998, they have imposed ban on such appointments. For these reasons, no directions can be given for absorption of petitioner into the service of the respondent-Corporation. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd November 2008 ajr