IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 22076 of 2000 Between: Shankaraiah, S/o. Rajaiah, R/o. Velair, Dharamasagar Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Regional Manger, Hanumakonda. 2 The Personal Officer, A.P.S.R.T.C., Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings bearing No.P2/684 (5)/98-RM:WL, dt. 14.9.2000 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to issue Orders of appointment as conductor-II on the basis of the Selection and extend the beneﬁts from the date of appointment of the candidate below the petitioner in the selection list and 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.J.VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner who was selected for the post of Conductor Grade-II in Warangal region in the respondent- Corporation, but was denied appointment, ﬁled this petition questioning the proceedings No.P2/684(5)/98-RM:WL, dated 14-09-2000 issued by the Regional Manager, Warangal Region, Hanamkonda. In the selections held in the month of February, 1999 the petitioner was selected for the post of Conductor Grade-II in Warangal Region in the respondent-Corporation. However, his selection was subject to medical ﬁtness, veriﬁcation of character and antecedents, genuineness of educational and caste certiﬁcates. On enquiry with regard to character and antecedents, when the respondents came know that the petitioner involved in Crime Nos.28/91, 159/91 and 39/92 of Madikonda Police Station and has association with militant group, he was issued a show cause notice dated 10- 08-2000 to show cause as to why his name cannot be removed from the selection list. Dissatisﬁed with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, by the order impugned he was informed that in view of the antecedents and character he cannot be given appointment and deleted his name from the selected list. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was already acquitted in Crime Nos.28/91, 159/91 and 39/92 of Madikonda Police Station it cannot be said to be involved in the said crimes and so the respondents should not have denied the appointment to the petitioner. It is to be noted that it is always open for the respondent-Corporation to verify the antecedents and character before appointing a person in the Corporation. In the order impugned, it is stated that during the inquiry it came to light that the petitioner was a member of the militant group during 1990 to 1992 and associated with the extremist activities during 1993 and 1994 also. In view of the said inquiry conducted by the respondents and his alleged involvement in Crime Nos.28/91, 159/91 and 39/92 of Madikonda Police Station the petitioner was denied appointment. Mere acquittal of the petitioner in the above crimes itself is not a ground to plead that his character and antecedents are good. It is always open to the employer to enquire about the nature and seriousness of the crimes and other activities of a person to assess his character for giving employment. When on enquiry it came to light that the selected person is associated with the prohibited activities, it is always open for the employer to deny the employment on the ground that the character and antecedents of the said person are not good. Mere acquittal ipso facto cannot be ground to plea that his character and antecedents are good. Even it is open for the employer to look into the judgment rendered by the Court so as to assess the character and antecedents of a person. In the counter aﬃdavit it is stated that he was acquitted on the ground that some of the witnesses were declared hostile. In that view of the matter also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal charges he is entitled to seek employment in the respondent- Corporation cannot be accepted. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th September 2008 CVRK