IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27107 of 1999 Between: Thota Veera Ragahvaiah, S/o Koteswara Rao R/o. Kogantivari Street , Chenchupet , Tenali , Guntur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC Rep by Managing Director Musheerabad , Hyderabad. 2 Regional manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Guntur Region, Guntur . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more Particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not absorbing me as conductor of any suitable post as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India and contrary to the judgment passed by the division Bench in WP No.5186/87 dt. 25-8-87 consequently direct the respondents corporation to appoint the petitioner as conductor or for any other suitable post forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not absorbing him as Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation as illegal and arbitrary and a consequential direction to the respondents to absorb him as Conductor. 2. The petitioner claims to have worked as Supervisor- cum-Conductor on a private bus bearing No.APK-577, which was being plied on the route ‘Tenali to Munnangi’ in Guntur District. The said route was nationalized in the year 1988. As a welfare measure, respondents have opened a scheme to employ the drivers and conductors working on such private buses. The case of the petitioner is that the owner of the said bus forwarded the list of employees working on the said bus including his name, to the respondent-Corporation. His grievance is that though he was called for interview pursuant to the application submitted by him, in response to the notiﬁcation issued by the respondents from the displaced persons, and though he was orally informed that he would be absorbed in the Corporation, the Selection Committee did not absorb him as Conductor. 3. Respondents have ﬁled counter aﬃdavit stating that some of the routes in Guntur District were nationalized in the year 1988 and the route in question was also nationalized. It is stated that the Corporation issued a notiﬁcation in the print media inviting applications from displaced employees and the application of the petitioner, who has responded to the said notiﬁcation, was considered along with the information submitted by the owner of the bus. It is stated that the Selection Committee after perusing the information and certiﬁcates produced by the petitioner, opined that the petitioner does not hold conductor’s licence and therefore he is not entitled for absorption in the Corporation. It is further stated that in May, 1989 the petitioner was given one more opportunity to produce conductor’s licence to consider his case for absorption, but he failed to do so. 4. It is to be noted that one of the conditions in the scheme evolved by the Corporation for the purpose of engaging displaced persons, i.e. the persons who have worked on private buses and displaced on account of nationalization of routes, is that one must have a valid conductor’s licence for a period of one year preceding the date of nationalization of the route. The Selection Committee of the respondent- Corporation has considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess valid conductor’s licence. The petitioner was given further opportunity to produce the conductor’s licence, but he could not utilize the opportunity. When the respondents have evolved a scheme for engaging displaced persons and one of the conditions notiﬁed in the scheme is that one must have a valid conductor’s licence, petitioner, without complying with the said condition, cannot seek directions as prayed for. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. August 27, 2008 MRR