HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9788 of 2010 Dated: 27-04-2010 Between: K. Kamala Kumari. … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9788 of 2010 ORDER: As it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that similar matters were already disposed of by this Court, this writ petition is also disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer : “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Conductor is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent is against the principles of natural justice and against to the Corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent’s proceedings, dated 12.11.2008 as re- engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits including regularisation”. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis, on 10.05.2006, in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), and is posted in the 2nd respondent Depot. Though appointments are made on contract basis, but such appointments are made after following the due procedure prescribed for selection of regular candidates, and as per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, the persons employed on contract basis will be absorbed into regular service, as and when the vacancies arise. On 22.09.2008, when the petitioner was on duty, conducting the bus on the route from Tenali to Guntur, an inspection was made by the inspecting officials. On the ground that there is a short remittance of Rs.8/- by the petitioner, alleging mis-appropriation of such amount, she was terminated from service, by an order, dated 30.09.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager in Proceedings No.02/95(110)/2008-TNL. As against the same, the petitioner preferred review/representation before the Regional Manager, Guntur. Mainly, it was the case of the petitioner before the Regional Manager that due procedure was not followed by giving opportunity to her, before dispensing with her services. The Regional Manager, by an order, dated 12th of November 2008, issued in Proceedings No.PA/19( )/08-RM(G), while setting aside the order of termination, has ordered for engagement of petitioner as a fresh candidate. It is submitted that pursuant to such directions, he is already reinstated into service. 4. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that as much as no inquiry was conducted by the primary authority though serious misconduct was alleged, the appellate authority ought to have allowed the appeal. It is submitted that as the regular procedure is followed for selections and having regard to the nature of misconduct alleged, it is not open for the respondents to terminate the services of petitioner without conducting any inquiry and without giving opportunity to her. It is submitted that, there is no reason for issuing directions by the appellate authority to treat the petitioner as a fresh candidate by entering into a fresh agreement. The learned counsel also relies on a judgment of this Court, dated 12th of April 2010, passed in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. 5. I have perused the order of the primary authority. Although the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, but it is not a termination simplicitor. When the termination is on the ground of alleged misconduct, respondents ought to have conducted by giving opportunity to the petitioner, in the absence of which, it is not permissible to terminate her services on the alleged misconduct. In that view of the matter, there is no reason or justification in treating the petitioner as a fresh candidate, as ordered by the Regional Manager, in his orders, dated 12th of November 2008. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, and in view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010 referred above, I dispose of this writ petition, by setting aside the directions issued by the appellate to the extent of directing to treat the petitioner as a fresh candidate, and directing her to enter into a fresh agreement. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to extend the contract service rendered by the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment, for the purpose of seniority and absorption into regular service. Petitioner is entitled for continuity of service and to all the benefits of contract employment, which are extended to the similarly placed contract Conductors, appointed along with her. It is also made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting inquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th April 2010 ajr