IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1174 OF 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04.08.2008 in W.P.No.12547 of 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Mahaboobnagar Region, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... APPELLANTS AND Mr. Venkata Ramulu S/o. Eshwaraiah R/o. Yadireddypalli Post and Village, Tadoor Mandal, Mahaboobnagar. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent : MR.G.VIDYASAGAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) This case brings to the fore the apathy, indifference and arbitrariness of the hidebound and obdurate administration of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, ‘the APSRTC’). The respondent/writ petitioner completed I.T.I. (Turner) course in the years 1984-86 and did his apprenticeship training at the Zonal Workshop of the APSRTC’s Training College at Hyderabad during the years 1991-92. Admittedly, such apprentices enjoy a preferential right in seeking employment in the APSRTC. In pursuance of the APSRTC’s notification dated 17.08.1998, the respondent applied for and underwent the selection process for appointment to the post of Cleaner/Shramik. In the selection list of 16 candidates, his name figured at Sl.No.5. However, he was not sent for medical examination along with the other 15 candidates in the select list, as a doubt was entertained by the APSRTC about the genuineness of his apprenticeship certificate. This was owing to the discrepancy in the signatures of the Principal of the Training College being in different ink. Thereafter, upon satisfying itself about the validity of the certificate, the APSRTC sent the respondent for medical examination and found him fit for appointment, as evidenced by the medical certificate No.029290 dated 30.11.1998. However, he was not given the appointment and there is no explanation forthcoming even now, as to why he was denied the same after being sent for medical examination by the APSRTC itself. Be that as it may, the respondent once again applied for employment as a Cleaner/Shramik in the APSRTC pursuant to the notification dated 07.09.2000 notifying 20 vacancies. He was interviewed on 19.09.2000 and his name figured at Sl.No.14 in the select list of 20 candidates. As he was denied appointment once again, the respondent made a representation to the APSRTC on 08.10.2000, but to no avail. He then filed W.P. No.24866 of 2002 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 16.12.2002 directing the APSRTC to consider the respondent’s representation dated 08.10.2000 in accordance with law. The inaction of the APSRTC pursuant to this order led the respondent to file Contempt Case No.1064 of 2003. Thereupon, the APSRTC issued proceedings dated 05.09.2003 admitting that the respondent had been selected for appointment to the post of Cleaner/Shramik and that his name stood at Sl.No.14 in the panel. Stating so, the APSRTC explained it’s inaction in implementing the order of this Court by relying upon the interim order of this Court in W.P. No.17811 of 2000 directing it to keep 7 posts of Cleaners/Shramiks vacant until further orders. W.P. No.17811 of 2000 was filed by some unsuccessful candidates who had appeared for the selections pursuant to the notification dated 07.09.2000. It appears that W.P.No.17811 of 2000 was dismissed by this Court on 30.01.2006. In spite of the same, no action was taken by the APSRTC to consider the respondent’s case for appointment, which constrained him to approach this Court once again by way of Contempt Case No.587 of 2007. Thereupon, the APSRTC issued proceedings dated 12.01.2007 stating that the validity of the selection panel had expired long back; that the requirement of Shramiks was based on the schedules existing as on that date, that some of the activities had been outsourced thereafter and further, direct recruitment had been banned and the ban was still continuing. Stating the above reasons, the APSRTC rejected the respondent’s case for appointment once again, reiterating that the panel validity had already expired on 29.01.2001. These proceedings were subjected to challenge in W.P.No.12457 of 2008. By order dated 04.08.2008 the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the APSRTC to pass necessary orders on the basis of the 2000 panel, in which the name of the respondent figured at Sl.No.14, without referring to any of the grounds mentioned in the impugned order dated 12.01.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the APSRTC is in appeal before us. Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, contended that in the light of the facts aforestated, the select panel of the year 2000 could not be kept alive indefinitely and therefore it must be deemed to have expired upon the completion of one year from the date of its inception. She placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in ARYAVRAT GRAMIN BANK v. VIJAY SHANKAR SHUKLA[1] in support of her contention. Per contra, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, argued that the facts on hand demonstrated the uncaring attitude of the APSRTC, which had denied his client employment at every stage though he was eligible and entitled for the same. He submitted that the approach of the APSRTC through out, including before this Court, demonstrated a sense of irresponsibility and indifference, which required to be condemned strongly. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal, confirming the order of the learned Judge. It is not in dispute that the respondent was successful in the selection process pursuant to the first notification dated 17.08.1998. He stood at Sl.No.5 in the select list of 16 candidates but was denied appointment only on the ground that the APSRTC entertained a doubt as to the genuineness of the certificate issued by it’s own Training College. Having cleared the doubt, the APSRTC sent the respondent for medical examination wherein he was found fit. There is no explanation forthcoming before us as to why no further action was taken thereafter by the APSRTC to appoint the respondent. Even in the second round of selections pursuant to the notification dated 07.09.2000, the respondent was found fit for selection, figuring at Sl.No.14 in the select list of 20 candidates. Writ Petition No.17811 of 2000 was filed by some unsuccessful candidates, who had appeared for the selection pursuant to this notification, and by interim order dated 12.09.2000, the APSRTC was directed by this Court to keep 7 posts of Cleaners/Shramiks vacant until further orders. The respondent separately approached this Court by way of W.P.No.24866 of 2002 and a final order was passed therein on 16.12.2002 directing the APSRTC to consider his representation dated 08.10.2000 for appointment to the post in question. In Contempt Case No.1064 of 2003 filed by the respondent alleging violation of this order, the stand of the APSRTC was that owing to the interim order dated 22.09.2000 in W.P.No.17811 of 2000, it could not consider the respondent’s representation. This stand is reflected in the APSRTC’s proceedings dated 05.09.2003. Relevant to note, the interim order in W.P.No.17811 of 2000 was vacated by this Court on 13.06.2002, that is, long before the passing of the final order dated 16.12.2002 in the respondent’s writ petition. Therefore, the proceedings of the APSRTC dated 05.09.2003 were issued without reference to the facts and are also indicative of the careless attitude of it’s Officers in discharging their responsibility towards this Court. Thereafter, W.P.No.17811 of 2000 itself came to be dismissed on 30.01.2006 and as the apathetic attitude of the APSRTC continued in the same vein even thereafter, the respondent again approached this Court by way of Contempt Case No.587 of 2007. This resulted in the impugned proceedings dated 12.01.2007 wherein the APSRTC invented the new ground of expiry of the select list as a reason to deny the respondent’s claim for appointment. Needless to state, this ground that the select panel had expired on 21.09.2001 was available to the APSRTC even at the first stage, when the final order dated 16.12.2002 was passed in the respondent’s first writ petition. The other grounds mentioned in the impugned proceedings dated 12.01.2007 are that the requirement for Cleaners/Shramiks existing as on the date of the notification in the year 2000 was no longer there, in the light of outsourcing of these activities and in view of the ban on such appointments, which are all subsequent developments. The concerted effort and endeavour of the APSRTC seems to be to deny the respondent appointment to the post of Cleaner/Shramik, notwithstanding his being successful in two selections. The facts aforestated demonstrate that in this effort the APSRTC even stooped to the level of perjuring itself before this Court by pleading protection under the interim order of this Court in W.P.No.17811 of 2000, which had been vacated by that date. In such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the learned Judge came down heavily upon the APSRTC, took due note of all the aforestated facts and circumstances and allowed the writ petition. To add insult to injury, the APSRTC instead of taking a cue from the caustic criticism by the learned Judge and reforming it’s ways, chose to file this appeal! We are in complete agreement with the learned Judge that there could not be a better example of arbitrariness than what is presented in this case. The treatment of the respondent by the APSRTC, to say the least, is shabby, outrageous and completely unbefitting the standards expected of a State instrumentality. Even on merits, we find no substance in the contention that the respondent should be denied relief on the ground that the select panel had expired. The admitted chronology of events sets at naught this specious argument. The select list, pursuant to the second notification, was prepared on 19.09.2000. The interim stay order directing 7 posts to be kept vacant was passed in W.P.No.17811 of 2000 on 22.09.2000, that is, a mere three days thereafter. The said stay was vacated on 13.06.2002 and the respondent’s W.P.No.24866 of 2002 was disposed of on 16.12.2002 directing the APSRTC to consider his representation dated 08.10.2000 for appointment to the post. Thus, the panel was in a state of animated suspension in so far as the 7 posts are concerned from 22.09.2000 to 13.06.2002 and the said period has to be excluded in computing the period of validity of the said panel for these 7 posts. The respondent, standing at Sl.No.14 of the select list of 20 candidates would have to be accommodated in the first out of these 7 posts. Thereafter, within six months, that is, on 16.12.2002 the respondent secured an order from this Court directing consideration of his case for appointment. The said direction was passed before the expiry of the one year validity of the select panel, after omitting the period obtaining under the stay orders of this Court. It was the APSRTC thereafter that prevaricated and dodged the issue, stooping to the level of committing perjury and denied the respondent his due and just appointment. In such circumstances, it is not open to the APSRTC to brush aside the respondent’s claim after all that has transpired, by glibly stating that the select panel had expired. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in ARYAVRAT GRAMIN BANK’s case (referred to supra) is of no avail to the APSRTC. In the said case the Supreme Court, while reiterating the settled proposition of law that a person in a select list has no vested right to get appointment, observed that the life of a panel, even without statutory provision, is one year and appointment should not be made after the expiry of the life of the panel. However, as stated supra, the select panel in the present case did not expire by the time the respondent secured the order dated 16.12.2002 from this Court directing consideration of his case and it is the APSRTC’s own dilatory and evasive tactics in dealing with the issue that resulted in the delay thereafter. In such a situation, the APSRTC cannot take advantage of it’s own misdeeds and deny the respondent’s claim. In this regard, the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforestated Judgment are apposite: “21. ………… It is also trite that ordinarily a Superior Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would not interfere with the right to make appointment by an employer unless its action or inaction is found to be wholly arbitrary so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” The above mandate supports the respondent’s claim in the facts and circumstances of this case and validates our interference in the matter. It is unfortunate that in spite of the justified vituperation by the learned Judge with regard to the utter illegality of it’s action, the APSRTC instead of learning a lesson therefrom, chose to assail the said order by way of this appeal. We find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge and accordingly confirm the same. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. We are constrained to comment upon the irresponsible and utterly careless attitude of the APSRTC in dealing with the matter on hand and strongly condemn the same. In such view of the matter, we find this a fit case for imposition of costs and accordingly direct the appellants herein to pay costs to the respondent quantified at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand). _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. __________ August, 2009. VGSR [1] 2007 (6) SLR 668