IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 23196 of 1999 Between: Mr. M.Nandam, S/o Sankaraiah, R/o Boyawada, Ramagiri, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradwsh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradwsh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3 B.Ramulu, Leading Hand (A.P.-S.R.T.C), E-No.66912, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4 P.Krishnaiah, Leading Hand, E.No: 85098, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nalgonda Region. .....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 a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the 2nd respondent to promote the Petitioner as Leading Leading Hand when his Junior was promoted to the said post of Leading Hand with all consequential and attendant benefits including arrears of pay. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 23196 of 1999 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to promote him to the post of Leading Hand from that of his present post i.e. Tyre Mechanic (Grade- I). 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Cleaner on 08.07.1977 in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’), and he was promoted to the post of Tyre Mechanic (Grade – II) on 09.02.1979. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though respondents 3 and 4 were promoted to the post of Grade – II Mechanics on 24.03.1979 and 31.07.1979 respectively i.e. subsequent to his promotion, but without considering his claim for the post of Leading Hand, respondents 1 and 2 have considered and promoted respondents 3 and 4. It is submitted that the representation ﬁled by him, claiming promotion to the post of Leading Hand, is not considered in proper perspective. 3. The appointments to various posts in the Corporation are governed by Statutory Regulations, namely, APSRTC (Employment, Recruitment) Regulations, 1966. The said Regulations are framed under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The post of Leading Hand is categorized in Section-F of Clause (iii) Services. As per the said Regulations, for the post of Leading Hand, method of recruitment is notified. A candidate must have rendered not less than ﬁve years of service, and it is notiﬁed to the eﬀect that in a unit of 12 vacancies in a Division, there are four slots in (a), (b), (c) and (d), for making appointments, which read as under : “a) The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th and 12th vacancy shall be ﬁlled by promotion by selection from the ranks of Mechanics Gr.I or otherwise from the ranks of Mechanics Gr.II. b) The 5th, 8th, and 11th vacancy shall be ﬁlled by promotion by selection from the ranks of other Artisans (Other than mechanics). c) The 6th and 10th vacancy shall be ﬁlled by way of promotion by selection of Mechanic Gr.I or Gr.II who are directly recruited as such from ITI candidates. d) The 2nd vacancy be ﬁlled by promotion by selection of other Artisans Gr.I or Gr.II (other than Mechanics) who are directly recruited as such from ITI candidates.” 4. As per the averments made in the counter aﬃdavit, it is stated that the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 were promoted from the post of Tyre Mechanic (Grade-II) to Tyre Mechanic (Grade-I). It is also not in dispute that respondents 3 and 4 are promoted to Grade – I earlier to that of the petitioner. Though the petitioner has not questioned such promotion of respondents 3 and 4 as Grade – I Mechanics, but however, he relies on Circular instructions dated 12th February 1990. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the said circular instructions, the date of appointment to the post of Grade – II Mechanic has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of aﬀecting further promotion to the post of Leading Hand. However, in the counter, it is stated that promotion of respondents 3 and 4 as Grade – I Mechanics, was earlier to issuance of the said circular instructions, and that the same are prospective in operation. However, as per slot (a) referred to above, in a Unit of 12 vacancies, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th and 12th vacancies are to be ﬁlled up by promotion from the ranks of Mechanics Grade – I or otherwise from the ranks of Mechanics Grade – II. In slot (d), the 2nd vacancy is to be ﬁlled up by selection of other Artisans Grade – I or Grade – II (other than Mechanics), who are directly recruited as such from ITI candidates. The petitioner claims benefit of such circular instructions. 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the beneﬁt of such circular instructions, is not clear from the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents. However, it is submitted by the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation that since respondents 3 and 4 are promoted earlier to the issuance of circular instructions, the petitioner cannot seek beneﬁt of such instructions on par with the benefits extended to respondents 3 and 4. 6. Asmuch as the applicability of the aforesaid circular instructions to the petitioner is not considered by the respondent-authorities, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the 2nd respondent – Regional Manager, by enclosing a copy of the circular, which he seeks to rely upon, within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is ﬁled, the 2nd respondent shall consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Leading Hand, and shall pass appropriate orders on the representation by examining the issue, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, and communicate the same to the petitioner. 7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th September 2008 N.B: Issue C.C. in three days. (b/o) ajr. To 1 The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.