IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WP Nos. 23569, 23492, 23725 & 23983 of 1999 WP No.23569 of 1999: Between: P. Amanulla, S/o.P. Ghouse Moinuddin, Ananthapur Depot, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anantpur District R/o.H.No.3/253, 3rd Road, New Town, Anantpur, Anantpur District. A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ananthapur Region, Ananthapur District, A.P. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ananthapur Region, Ananthapur District, A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS, directing the respondents herein to treat the petitioner as regular Conductor, w.e.f.10-7-1985 instead of 10-11-1986 with all attendant beneﬁts after calling for the records and to pass such other order or orders that this Honourable Court may deem just to pass. Counsel for Petitioner:MR.PRATTIPATI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI WP Nos. 23492 of 1999: Between: G.Prabhakar, S/o Sri P.Buchamma garu, APSRTC, Ananthapur Depot, R/o H.No.5-115, B., 4th Road, Ananthapur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ananathapur District, AP. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ananathapur Dist., AP. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents herein to treat the petitioner as Regular Conductor w.e.f. 16-4-85 instead of 28-11-96 with all attendant beneﬁts after calling for the records and to pass such other orders that this Honourable Court may deem just to pass. Counsel for Petitioner:MR.PRATTIPATI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI WP No.23725 of 1999: Between: K. Kondaiah S/o. Sri K. Peddanna E-No.400694, at APSRTC Depot., Ananthapur, R/o. H.No.6-1-584, Lakshmi nagar, Ananthapur District, Andhra Prdesh. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot. Manager, APSRTC, Anantpur, Anantpur Dist., A.P. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ananthapur Region, Anantpur Dist., A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS, directing the respondents herein to treat the petitioner as regular conductor w.e.f. 10-701985 instead of 10-11-1986 with all attendant beneﬁts after calling for the records and pass Counsel for Petitioner:MR.PRATTIPATI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI WP No.23983 of 1999: Between: P.Shafiulla, S/o P.Ghouse Mohiuddin, Ananthapur Depot. APSRTC, Ananthapur District, R/o H.No.3/253, 3rd Road, New Town, Ananthapur, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot. Manager, APSRTC, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District, A.P. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ananthapur Region, Ananthapur District, A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS, directing the respondents herein to treat the petitioner as Regular conductor w.e.f. 10.7.1985 instead of 10-11-1986 with all attendant beneﬁts after calling for the records and to pass Counsel for Petitioner:MR.PRATTIPATI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: In view of the common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in all these four writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the purpose of deciding these petitions, I consider the questions of fact and law that arise in W.P.No.23569 of 1999 as a basis. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction, by way of Mandamus, to the respondents to treat him as a regular Conductor with eﬀect from 10- 07-1985 instead of 10-11-1986, with all attendant benefits. The petitioner who is a Graduate in Commerce was initially engaged as a casual Conductor on 04-02- 1984 in Guntakal Depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent-Corporation’) and worked as such up to 01- 07-1984. He was retrenched on 01-07-1984. Subsequently, the respondent-Corporation issued a notiﬁcation 28-12-1984 inviting applications to ﬁll up the posts of Conductor on daily wage basis. In the said notiﬁcation a condition was stipulated to the eﬀect that the applicant should secure 60% marks in 10th Class examination. Aggrieved by the said condition, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons approached this Court by way of W.P.No.5824 of 1985, and pending that writ petition, this Court by order dated 14-06-1985 in WPMP No.7938 of 1985 passed interim directions to the respondent-Corporation to consider the candidature of the petitioner without insisting that he should get 60% marks in 10th Class examination. On the basis of the interim directions, the petitioner was selected and was appointed on 10-07- 1985 as Conductor on daily wage basis, and as per the further directions of this Court in WPMP No.13620 of 1986 which was subsequently ﬁled seeking directions to extend all the beneﬁts which are being extended to the regular employees, the respondent-Corporation by order dated 10-11-1986 extended all the benefits on par with the other regular Conductors to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Writ Petition No.5824 of 2005 was allowed on the ground that the vacancies in which the petitioners therein were appointed were in existence earlier than the prescription of 60% marks in 10th class examination as the minimum eligibility criterion. In view of the disposal of the said writ petition and earlier orders of this Court in WPMP No.13620 of 1986, the respondent-Corporation has issued orders regularizing the services of the petitioner with eﬀect from 10-11- 1986. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as the regular vacancies were existing even prior to the notiﬁcation dated 28-12-1984, in response to which he was selected and appointed in the post of Conductor on daily wage basis on 10-07-1985, he is entitled to the beneﬁt of regularization of his services with eﬀect from 10-07-1985 instead of 10-11- 1986 with all attendant benefits. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents it is categorically stated that earlier the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on 04-02- 1984 due to exigency of services and subsequently he was disengaged on 01-07-1984. It is further stated that the candidature of the petitioner in response to the notiﬁcation issued on 28-12-1984 was considered in view of the directions issued by this Court. It is also stated that taking into account the interim directions issued by this Court in WPMP No.13620 of 1986 the services of the petitioner in the post of Conductor were regularized with effect from 10-11-1986 along with other Conductors. Heard Sri Prattipati Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt W.V.S.RAJESWARI, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of his services with eﬀect from 10-07- 1985 instead of 10-11-1986. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected to the post of Conductor in response to the notiﬁcation dated 28-12-1984. The said notiﬁcation itself was issued inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Conductor on daily wage basis only. The practice in the Corporation is to recruit the candidates to the posts of Conductor, Driver and Shramik, etc., initially on daily wage basis and to absorb them later as and when regular vacancies arise. Even in the case on hand, the notiﬁcation itself is for ﬁlling up the vacancies of Conductor on casual basis only and in response to that notiﬁcation the petitioner applied for and his candidature was considered for the post of Conductor on casual basis, though he was not qualiﬁed the 10th class examination with 60% marks, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in WPMP No.7938 of 1985 in W.P.No.5824 of 1985. After his appointment as Conductor on daily wage basis in the respondent- Corporation, he sought further directions from this Court in WPMP No.13620 of 1986 to the respondent- Corporation to extend him all the beneﬁts that are being extended to the regular employees. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in WPMP No.13620 of 1986, the respondent-Corporation by order dated 10-11-1986 regularized the services of the petitioner and extended all the beneﬁts to him on par with other regular Conductors. Subsequently, the W.P.No.5824 of 1985 was allowed. In this regard, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.SRTC v. N.SATYANARAYANA[1], which supports the case of the respondent-Corporation. In the said judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.874 of 2005 in which the order of regularization of services from the date of initial appointment with all consequential beneﬁts made in Writ Petition No.16244 of 1999 was upheld. In view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court and inasmuch as the petitioner was not appointed on 10-07-1985 on regular basis in response to the notiﬁcation dated 28-12-1984, he cannot, after his appointment on 10-07-1985 on casual basis, seek regularization of his services with eﬀect from 10-07-1985. For the foregoing reasons, no directions can be given to regularize the services of the petitioner with eﬀect from 10-07-1985. The writ petition is thus devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. WP Nos.23492, 23725 & 23983 of 1999: Since the relief sought for in these writ petitions is also same to that of the relief sought for in W.P.No.23569 of 1999, for the reasons recorded in W.P.No.23569 of 1999, these writ petitions are also dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J September 22, 2008 CVRK [1] (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 210