IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.4035 of 2009 Between: R.Satyanarayana. … Petitioner And The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Venkatesh. Counsel for the respondents: Sri C.Abbaya Sharma. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not considering representation dated 20-12-2008 of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be a displaced workman having worked as a Checker in a private bus bearing No.APS 3391, which was plied on the route from Sompeta to Tekkali in Srikakulam District from 1-8-1986 to 1-11-1987. The petitioner averred that the said route was nationalized and, consequently, the operation of the private buses on the said route was discontinued. The petitioner claims that in pursuance of the scheme evolved by the APSRTC to absorb the displaced employees, he had been making representations to the respondents, from time to time, to provide employment; and that respondent No.2 issued notification in the month of December, 2008 calling for applications for 171 posts of Conductors on contract basis in Srikakulam District. The petitioner further claims that he is fully qualified for being appointed and that he made a representation to respondent No.2 on 20-12-2008 to provide employment in the category of displaced persons. Though the petitioner claimed that as a displaced conductor he had been making representations from time to time, he filed copy of representation dated 20- 12-2008 only. A perusal of the said representation shows that the petitioner has not referred to any of his earlier representations. Except the petitioner’s ipse dixit that he had been making representations for his absorption as displaced workman, no material is produced in support thereof. It is not in dispute that the scheme of absorbing displaced workmen has already wound up by the Corporation long time back. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a stale claim, more than two decades after his alleged displacement. The petitioner is not entitled to seek any direction to the respondents to consider his case as a displaced employee. However, if the petitioner is eligible for applying for the post of Conductor on contract basis in terms of the notification said to have been issued by respondent No.2, he is free to apply and subject to his possessing the required qualification respondent No.2 shall consider his case along with others. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:25-3-2009 MNR