IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7093 of 2000 Between: 1 Battina Malleshwar, S/o.Veeraiah, Sanga Reddy Depot, Medak District. 2 Dakur Balaiah, S/o. Usiaha, Sanga Reddy Depot, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The A.P.S.RT.C., Rep. by Managing Director, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by Divisional Manager, Sanga Reddy Region, Medak District. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by Depot Manager, Sanga Reddy Depot, A.P.S.R.T.C., Medak 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 wtit, or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularising our service as per the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.A. No. 705/1995 dated 24.7.1995 and without following the provisions of Section 25(B) of I.D.Act 1947 as arbitrary, illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to regularise our service form the date of our initial appointment and to release all the consequentil benefits that flow from such regularisation and pass such any 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.B.H.R.CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MN} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBASH REDDY W.P.No.7093 of 2000 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not regularizing their services from the date of their initial appointment, as per the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.705 of 1995, dated 24-07-1995. 2. The petitioners, two in number, were appointed as drivers in the respondent-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity ‘Corporation’), with effect from 17-06-1993 and 02-03-1993, respectively. They are two among 45 Scheduled Caste candidates, who were selected for the post of driver Grade-II under backlog vacancies in the limited recruitment. The petitioners stood in Sl.Nos.30 and 32, respectively, in the list of selected candidates, and they were appointed under Regulation 17 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 as Casual Drivers. Their services were regularized from 31-07-1997 in view of availability of vacancies in the Unit. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that their services ought to have been regularized on completion of 240 days from the date of their initial appointment. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the Law Officer of respondent- Corporation, stating that instructions were issued by the Corporation in Circular No.PD-89/92, dated 27-10-1992, to decasualise the drivers and conductors working on casual basis, for regularization, based on 2.6 norm per each schedule, as on 31st July of every year. It is further stated that the cases of regularization were considered in the year 1994, 1995 and 1996, but the cases of the petitioners were not considered as they were juniors in the seniority list and there were no vacancies available on the basis of 2.6 norm per schedule. It is further submitted that as per the settlement arrived at by the Employees’ Union on 25-05-1995 under Section 12 (3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the services of the drivers, who have completed 240 working days, are to be regularized in a phased manner, and as such, the services of petitioners and other drivers, who have completed 240 working days, were regularized with effect from 31-07- 1997, as per seniority. Further, it is also stated that though their services were regularized with effect from 31-07-1997, their seniority was protected and they were placed as per their seniority at the time of recruitment. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. 6. Although it is the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled for regularization on completion of 240 days, but it is not in dispute that the very Notification to fill up backlog vacancies was for appointment of drivers on casual basis. While filling up the vacancies, though the respondents have followed regular selection procedure, but by following the circular instructions, and applying the 2.6 norm per schedule, regularization was ordered as per the seniority of the casual drivers. When seniority is followed for regularization of services of the casual drivers subject to availability of vacancies, the petitioners cannot seek regularization only on the ground that their services were to be regularized on just completion of 240 days, irrespective of vacancy position. Even the regularization, which was done in the year 1997, was as per the agreement entered by the management with the Employees’ Union and the same was done by following the seniority and the norms prescribed, subject to availability of vacancies. In that view of the matter, I do not see any illegality in regularizing the services of petitioners in the year 1997. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ 20th March 2009 KVR