IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7889 of 1999 Between: P. Ramakrishna S/o. Pentaiah R/o. Chinnamusidivada Mandal: Pendurty Dist: Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager(Rural) A.P.S.R.T.C., Visakhapatnam. 2 The Divisional Manager(Rural), A.P.S.R.T.C., Visakhapatnam. .....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 to issue appropriate writ or direction particularly the WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned action of the Ist Respondent in rejecting the petitioner's case for absroption for the post of Conductor under the displaced quota vide Proc.No.P1/125(6)/95-RM-VSP, dt.6-1- 1998 as arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of Indian and consequently direct the Respondents to absorb the petitioner for the post of Conductor under the displaced employee from the date of nationalisation of route Sabbavaram - Parawada with effect from 4-8-1987 along with its consequential benefits in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7889 of 1999 ORDER: The sole petitioner seeks appointment as a displaced employee of a private bus, the route of which was nationalized in the year 1987. While several contentions are raised, it would suffice to note that the Board of Directors of the respondent – Corporation in its resolution No. 56/1998 dated 15.5.1998 had resolved to impose a total ban on further absorption of appointment of displaced employees into the service of the Corporation in view of its critical financial position and in view of the Corporation’s decision to reduce the bus staff ratio on par with other State Transport Undertakings. The respondents would further state that the said decision was communicated, vide Circular No.PD-61/1998 dated 16.7.1998 and, as a consequence thereof, even genuine displaced employees are not entitled for absorption. In view of the ban on absorption, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine as to whether the petitioner is, or is not, entitled to be considered as a displaced employee, since even if all the contentions raised by Sri V.Narasimha Goud, Learned Counsel for the petitioner were to be accepted, even then no relief can be granted in view of the policy decision taken by the respondent – Corporation not to absorb such displaced employees because of its critical financial position. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. __________ 31-3-2008 asp