IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1354 of 2000 Between: 1 R.Chakram S/o. Buchiramaiah, R/o.Chokiral Nalgonda District 2 Y.Kannaiah S/o.Veeraiah, R/o. Bethavolu Nalgonda District 3 V.Vidyasagar s/o.Venkateswarlu,R/o. Singavaram Village, Nadigudem Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Divisional Manger Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District .....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, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to absorb the petitioners in the respondent corporation as conductors as drivers in the category of displaced persons or in alternative direct the respondent to consider the cases of the petitioners on priority basis in the regular vacancies without reference to the age and pass such other order or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus to absorb them in to the service of respondent-Corporation as Conductors and Drivers in the category of displaced persons due to Nationalisation of bus routes. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were working as Drivers and Conductors on the private bus service bearing No.APL-3400, owned by one D.Kashaiah S/o.Gopaiah, R/o.Kodad in Nalgonda District. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.Nos.278 to 331, dated 27.04.1991, Nationalising certain bus routes with effect from 01.05.1991. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they are entitled for absorption as per the beneficial scheme notified by the respondent-Corporation to accommodate the displaced persons on account of Nationalisation of routes, their claims were not considered and they were deprived of employment in the Corporation. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, it is stated that the vehicle bearing No.APL-3400 was covered by temporary permit No.3/85, and the same was valid up to 04.10.1990. It is also stated that there was no renewal of the said permit, and as such, the vehicle was not having any valid permit as on the date of Nationalisation of the route. It is further stated in the counter that as per the conditions of the scheme, to extend the benefit of absorption into the service of the Corporation, the vehicle on which the displaced persons were working, should have been in operation on the route taken over by A.P.S.R.T.C. for a continuous period of one year prior to the date of Nationalisation i.e. 01.05.1991. It is also stated in paragraph 7 of the counter that the Corporation has passed Resolution No.56/1998, dated 15.05.1998, imposing total ban on absorption and appointment of displaced persons into the service of the Corporation. Based on the same, circular instructions were issued in Circular No.PD-61/1998, dated 16.07.1998. 5. Though such stand is taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioners did not choose to file any rejoinder denying the same. 6. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, it is evident that to fit into the scheme of providing employment to the displaced persons, the claimants should have been working on the bus which was in operation on the route taken over by A.P.S.R.T.C. for a continuous period of one year prior to the date of Nationalisation, and it should possess valid permit as on that date. As much as the Nationalisation was on 01.05.1991 and as it is stated that the temporary permit which was granted to the bus bearing No.APL- 3400 in permit No.3/85 was valid only up to 04.10.1990, and as there was no renewal of such permit as on the date of Nationalisation, the petitioners, on the ground that they were working on the said bus as Drivers and Conductors, cannot seek absorption into the service of the Corporation. If the petitioners are seeking absorption under a particular scheme, which is notified by the Corporation, unless they fit into such scheme, they are not eligible for absorption. Further, it is also to be noted that though Nationalisation was in 1991, the petitioners have filed this writ petition only in the year 2000 and they have failed to explain this abnormal delay and laches on their part. 7. In view of the stand taken by the respondent- Corporation in the counter affidavit, and also in view of the unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court, I am of the view that the petitioners do not fit into the scheme, and as such, they are not entitled for absorption into the service of the Corporation. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd February 2009. ajr