THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 4724 OF 2005 Dated 30th June, 2010 Between: V.Govardhan …Petitioner And APSRTC and another …Respondents The Court made the following ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned Proceedings No.E1/E2/204(1)/94-DVM:NZB dated 05.09.1995 issued by the Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”), Nizamabad-respondent No.2, whereby the case of the petitioner for appointment as Cleaner into the services of the Corporation has been rejected. The petitioner claims that he worked as Cleaner in a private service bus bearing No.ATJ 795, owned by M/s P.Laxmi Kantha Rao and Sons, Nizamabad. Since the route on which the above said bus was plying was nationalised and taken over by the Corporation, his services were terminated. As the Corporation is absorbing the displaced employees into its services, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.804 of 1992 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents therein to allow him to attend to the interview to be held by the Corporation on 25.01.1992 and to further direct the respondents to absorb him into the services of the Corporation as Cleaner under the displaced employees category. By order dated 14.07.1992, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition, with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption as a Cleaner. Thereafter the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that when he was interviewed, he failed to give the names of the driver and the conductor of the bus on which he worked as Cleaner. Again the said rejection came to be questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.16875 of 1994. This Court, by order dated 20.12.1994, directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh for absorption into the services of the Corporation in accordance with the guidelines issued by this Court dated 15.03.1989 in W.P.No.3654 of 1989. Accordingly, the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same by the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition. Nearly ten years after passing of the impugned order, this writ petition has been filed on 09.03.2005 questioning the same. The grounds on which the claim of the petitioner for absorption was rejected, as stated in the impugned order, are that as per the certificate produced by the petitioner, his date of birth is 01.07.1970; that on the date of nationalisation of the route i.e., on 07.11.1987, he was 17 years 10 months and 6 days old only and that he is not having minimum 18 years of age; that the petitioner could not give the names of the driver and the conductor of the bus on which he worked and that only seven vacancies were allotted for the displaced employees; that all the vacancies were filled up with eligible and genuine displaced employees and that no further vacancies are available. The benefit of employment conferred on the displaced employees is based on the Circular issued by the Corporation. If a condition is there in the Circular that one must complete 18 years of age, as on the date of nationalisation, for absorption into the services of the Corporation, unless the said condition is fulfilled, one cannot get employment as a matter of right. Although the petitioner has been stating all through that he worked as Cleaner in a private service bus owned by M/s P.Laxmi Kantha Rao, in the interview he could not give the details of the driver and the conductor of the said bus with whom he worked. In any event, as per the Scheme notified by the Corporation, only seven persons can be accommodated for employment on account of displacement and when it is stated that all the seven vacancies were filled up, no further claim can be made by the petitioner for appointment. Moreover, the petitioner approached this Court nearly after ten years of the passing of the impugned order and no valid explanation has been offered by him for this inordinate delay. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 30th June, 2010 vrn