IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 35801 of 1998 Between: S. Appalaswamy, S/o Papaiah, R/o Purushottapuram (V), Palasa (M), Srikakulam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Srikakulam, Srikakulam Dist. .....RESPONDENT 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, or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the letter of the respondent issued in his Proceedings No.HC/785(147)/98-RM:SKLM Dt: 16-11-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and voilative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to absorb the petitioner into the APSRTC since he is a dis-placed employee and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR A.P.S.R.T.C.) The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the letter of the respondent issued in proceedings No.HC/785(147)/98-RM:SKLM dated 16-11-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to absorb the petitioner into the APSRTC since he is a displaced employee, Cleaner. The case of the petitioner is that he is a displaced Cleaner attached to a private bus bearing No.AAV 32 on the route Brahmanatharla to Goppili from 1985 to 11-11-1987 till the said route was nationalized and taken over by the APSRTC. He also submitted that who worked along with him in the said bus got employment in the Corporation within the jurisdiction of the respondent only but the case of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that he is an illiterate, which is not correct, since, later on, he acquired writing and reading capacity and now he is a signatory. He further submitted that questioning the inaction, earlier, he filed W.P. No.9361 of 1998 along with another and later on withdrawn the said writ petition. Subsequently, he made a representation dated 07-11-1998 to the respondent seeking to consider his case, mentioning all the facts. In response to the said representation the impugned order dated 16- 11-1998 was issued stating that the W.P. No.9361 of 1998 was dismissed. In view of the above, the office cannot take any further action on the representation. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed stating that withdrawal of the writ petition is not at all a bar for the respondent for consideration of the representation and the respondent ought to have considered the representation on merits in stead of summarily rejecting on the ground that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. On behalf of the respondent counter affidavit has been filed denying the averments made by the petitioner, inter alia, wherein it is submitted that nationalization of various routes started from 1960. Though there is no statutory obligation on the part of the Corporation to provide employment to workers of private buses, as a humanitarian measure, genuine, suitable and qualified persons among the displaced workers were absorbed in the services of the Corporation. But because of large claims, excess number of displaced employees were absorbed, there were surplus in certain categories. In view of the same, a circular dated 10-11-1983 was issued prescribing certain guidelines for absorption of employees of displaced private operators restricting the absorption. Admittedly the petitioner was one among them, who worked on vehicle No. AAV 32 plied on the route Brahmanatherla to Goppili and he was called for interview. After verification of the certificates produced by them and after conducting interview, the Selection Committee considered only one candidate as a displaced employee, Cleaner, on the said bus and selected him. The Selection Committee rejected the cases of all other persons who claimed to have worked as mechanics and Cleaners on the said bus. Further, in view of the critical financial position of the Corporation, as a measure to reduce the bus staff ratio, passed a resolution dated 15-03-1998 imposing ban on further absorption and appointment of displaced employees. In that view of the matter, even the genuine displaced employees are not entitled to absorption in the Corporation. Further, it is also submitted that the alleged representation dated 07-11-1998 was made subsequent to the Circular dated 16-07-1998. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the absorption. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that withdrawal of the writ petition is not at all a bar for the respondent for considering the representation. Therefore, non-consideration of the representation made by the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be set aside. A perusal of the record, admittedly the petitioner is the displaced employee, Cleanrer, in the Corporation. Though, so many details have been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation but the impugned order does not deal with the same, except that this Court dismissed the W.P. No.9361 of 1998 on 06-04- 1998, the office cannot take any further action on the representation. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that nothing prevents the Corporation for considering the representation said to have been made by the petitioner and it ought to have passed the reasoned order mentioning the reasons why the petitioner is not entitled to the absorption in the Corporation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent Corporation to consider the representation dated 07-11-1998, said to have been made by the petitioner, afresh and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 16-11-1998. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 27-06-2008 LSK