THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21175 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contractual ba the year 2007. His services were terminated on 27.11.2008 on the grou absenteeism. Review preferred by the petitioner before the Reg Manager was allowed on 28.02.2009 and the petitioner was requir report duty within seven days in Tanuku Depot. However, pleading gro of illness, the petitioner did not report to duty within the time, stipulated. Corporation has initiated steps for appointment of Conducto monthly wage basis and a notification was issued. The petitioner subm his application and he was issued a call letter, dated 04.02.2010. grievance is that though he was selected when he appeared on 17.02. he was not issued the order of appointment on the ground that he di produce the original of SSC. He contends that the said certificate is wi Corporation itself on account of his previous employment with it. Wit background, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents either to him to join duties in pursuance of the orders, dated 28.02.2009, pass the first respondent or to appoint him as a Conductor afresh, in pursuan the interview that was conducted on 17.02.2010. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respon obtained instructions at the stage of admission. He submitted tha petitioner failed to report to duty as directed by the first responde proceedings, dated 28.02.2009, and thereby, he lost his right. He f submitted that the petitioner did not attend the interview conducte 17.02.2010. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Sta Counsel for the respondents. There is serious dispute as to whether the petitioner appeared interview that was conducted on 17.02.2010. This Court cannot dea such disputed questions of fact. The petitioner was removed from service on 27.11.2008 an review preferred by him was allowed by the first respondent on 28.02.2 There was delay on the part of the petitioner in availing the benefit und order. The very fact that the respondents issued notification in applications for appointment of Conductors discloses that there adequate vacancies. The removal of the petitioner was not on the grou misappropriation. It was only on the allegations of absenteeism. The on the part of the petitioner in reporting to duty can be balanced by req the petitioner to forego his earlier service. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that in cas petitioner reports to duty within a period of two weeks from today, he sh taken into service as a Conductor on contractual basis afresh, in pursu of the orders, dated 28.02.2009, passed by the first respondent, subj his compliance with the conditions imposed therein. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:01.10.2010 Note: Issue CC in two days. (b/o) VGB