THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 27236 of 1997 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted questioning the legality and validity of an order passed on 30th December 1996 by the Regional Manager, Prakasam Region, APSRTC, Ongole, the 2nd respondent herein. The writ petitioner was said to be working as a Cleaner with a private bus service operator in Prakasam District and pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government, the route on which the bus of the said private operator was plying is one of the routes which stood nationalized in the year 1985/1986, consequently, the writ petitioner submits that he is a displaced employee. He was said to be working with the bus bearing Registration No. AAE 7232. Though the 1st respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) is under no legal obligation to absorb into its service the displaced employees, but however, it has taken a policy decision bearing No. PD-75/1983-84, dated 10th November 1983, proposing to absorb such of those essential staff, who are required for carrying on the operations by the Corporation, pursuant to nationalization of various bus routes. The Corporation, through the above-mentioned policy decision, dated 10th November 1983, has spelt out the procedure for recruitment/absorption of the requisite numbers of displaced persons from the private bus operators. The private bus operator as well as the employees engaged by them are required to produce certain records and registers, which, upon verification, if found genuine, the Corporation would be absorbing such personnel into its service. In fact, the contents of the said Circular have fallen for consideration before a learned Single Judge (Justice M.Jagannatha Rao, as His Lordships then was) in Writ Petition No. 3654 of 1989, which came to be decided on 15th March 1990. The learned Judge directed the Committee constituted by the APSRTC to consider the applications of the displaced personnel for absorption, when they produce material evidence with regard to their previous employment with the private bus operator, as certified by the Labour Enforcement Officer. Thus, after consideration of the cases of the displaced personnel, the Corporation was directed to pass a reasoned order in each case. Subsequently, the same question relating to the absorption of the displaced personnel, pursuant to the nationalization of bus routes has fallen for consideration before a Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 5186 of 1987 comprising of Chief Justice K. Bhaskaran and Justice Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri (as His Lordships then was) and the Division Bench has noticed the contention canvassed on behalf of the APSRTC that the Corporation was engaging in its service the displaced personnel proportionate to each of the buses nationalized, keeping in view the costs and economy of engaging such personnel and the consequential financial load on the Corporation. It was also contended on behalf of the Corporation that economy measures including steps for pruning the overhead costs of the services of the Corporation was deployed so that the efficiency of the services of the Corporation and their productivity would get increased. Keeping all these factors in mind, the Division Bench, ultimately, directed the Corporation that it may take steps to absorb such of the displaced personnel, as is required by the Corporation immediately for running its services and it may also prepare a list of such displaced personnel and absorb them into the service of the Corporation against any suitable post before any candidate from outside/open market be appointed by the Corporation against such posts. Pursuant to this judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 5186 of 1987 on 21st August 1987, the Corporation has issued another general Circular bearing No. 123 of 19987, dated 23rd November 1987 laying down the complete procedure for absorbing the displaced personnel. When this writ petitioner sought for absorption in the year 1995, the Corporation has rejected his case on the ground that he had approached the Corporation quite belatedly seeking such absorption. Then this petitioner instituted Writ Petition No. 16905 of 1996. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by his judgment, dated 20th August 1996, disposed of the said Writ Petition, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in the post of Cleaner without reference to the objection raised by the Corporation in its show cause notice, dated 27th November 1995 and based upon the certificate issued by the Labour Officer on 22nd April 1999, as well as keeping in view the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 5186 of 1987. It will be relevant to notice, at this stage, that the Labour Officer, Ongole, in his letter, dated 22nd April 1989, has certified, basing upon the report submitted by the Assistant Labour Officer, Kanigiri, that the writ petitioner has worked as a Cleaner with the private bus operator on his bus bearing Registration No. AAE 7232 and thus, recommended his case for absorption as he is a genuine displaced employee. It is, therefore, incumbent for the Corporation to consider the case of the writ petitioner for such absorption. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ongole, passed impugned order, dated 30th December 1996, setting out that pursuant to another policy decision announced through P.D.No. 139 of 1987, dated 29th December 1987, as many as 46 posts of Cleaners were earmarked for Prakasam District and after examining the cases of various displaced personnel, the Regional Manager has authorized the absorption of several personnel as Cleaners and, in fact, as many as 54 displaced personnel were absorbed as Cleaners in the service of the Corporation, insofar as Prakasam District is concerned. In three different affidavits filed in this Court, one along with W.P.M.P.No. 11215 of 2007 as well as a counter affidavit filed in the above Writ Petition and a 2nd additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it has been stated by the Corporation that the maximum number of cleaners that can be absorbed from the displaced personnel insofar as Prakasam District is concerned is only 46 and the Corporation has, in fact, exceeded this limit and absorbed 54 personnel and hence, there is no scope for considering the claims of the writ petitioner herein for absorption as a Cleaner in the services of the Corporation. Sri S.A.K. Mynoddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corporation has all through been assuring this Court that one Cleaner would be absorbed from out of every two buses of the private operators, which were nationalized and hence, the case of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered for absorption as a Cleaner, inasmuch as 300 buses of the private operators in Prakasam District stood nationalized and equal number of buses of the Corporation were plying thereon. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not merely 46 or 54, but as many as 150 Cleaners ought to have been absorbed in the service of the Corporation and hence, the service of the writ petitioner deserves to be directed to be absorbed into the service of the Corporation. Per contra, Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation is under no statutory obligation to absorb into its service the displaced personnel and out of a sympathetic and compassionate view, the Corporation has adopted a policy decision to absorb such number of displaced personnel of the private bus operators, as is reasonably permissible, keeping in view the overhead costs involved in this process. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation contends that the respondent-Corporation being a public sector undertaking, was under an obligation to provide appropriate transportation facilities to the citizens of the State by operating various services, a majority of which are run on the rural sector, which are mostly non-profitable services and hence, the Corporation is under obligation to check its overall costs per bus and also ensure that the productivity and the economy of the Corporation cannot be sacrificed for the purpose of absorption of the displaced personnel into its services. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. Though there was no statutory compulsion for the Corporation to absorb all the displaced personnel into its service, but however, one should not lose sight of the fact that whenever a privately operated bus route is nationalized by the State and it directs the buses belonging to the Corporation to ply on such routes, the Corporation invariably needs certain manpower to sustain and support such services. It is essential for the Corporation to have adequate number of drivers, conductors and cleaners, technical staff and other artisans, to keep their fleet going smoothly. It is, therefore, only appropriate that the services of the displaced personnel should be absorbed into its service, to enable it to carry on the operations without any hitch for want of availability of human resources immediately, but at the same time, the respondent- Corporation being a public sector undertaking cannot be fastened with the liability to maintain all such displaced personnel irrespective of the fact whether they are genuinely employed personnel by the private bus operator or not and without any regard being had by the Corporation for the requisite number of men for operating buses on such routes which stood nationalized. Optimum utilization of the available human resources is a factor which goes a long way in checking the overall expenditure, which the Corporation is liable to incur. The Corporation is established essentially to provide quality and comparatively cheaper modes of transport to the general public. The State Government lends a huge helping hand to the respondent-Corporation in many ways for enabling it to carry on its operations, but however, such grant of the State has go to be confined to certain limits. Consequently, every public sector undertaking must strive to ensure that its overall costs of operations are restricted to the optimum level and the available human resources are put to maximum efficiency, thus, controlling the overhead costs. Such measures would help the Corporation from operating its services within the parameters of its financial capacity. Keeping all these factors in mind, one had to rationally conclude that the Corporation would be perfectly legitimate in absorbing such number of displaced personnel only, as is optimally required by it. In this context, the spirit with which the learned Judges of the Division Bench has decided Writ Petition No. 5185 of 1987, has got to be kept in mind. The learned Judges have rightly directed the Corporation to maintain a list of the displaced persons and seek to absorb as many of them as is possible from out of such list before the Corporation could turn to the outside sources of recruitment i.e. from the open market. It would also be appropriate in this very context to note that as soon as the private bus service has been nationalized, the Corporation has taken out an advertisement in newspapers, inviting claims from the displaced personnel for their absorption. It has also been borne out by record that several employees of the private bus operators have also been absorbed. In fact, the learned Standing Counsel has also produced before me the list of 54 names of private bus operators’ displaced personnel who have been absorbed as Cleaners in Prakasam District. Since the writ petitioner has not responded to such a notification, his case was not considered for such absorption. I, therefore, do not find any justification to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to absorb the writ petitioner into its service forthwith. The writ petitioner had not turned up till 1995 for such absorption. If the Corporation has considered such of those personnel, who have turned up immediately for such absorption and accordingly absorbed them, into its service, no one can find fault with that, but going by the spirit with which the learned Judges of the Division Bench issued directions in Writ Petition No. 5186 of 1987, I consider it appropriate to direct the Corporation to include the name of the writ petitioner herein in the list of displaced personnel for Prakasam District and take up his case for consideration for appointment as a Cleaner as and when the Corporation next undertakes the recruitment of Cleaners from the open market or before it absorbs other displaced personnel in Prakasam District. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 24th November 2009 ksld