IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 1453 of 2000 Between: K.Prabhakara Rao, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, R/o. Plot No.1339, Sector No.5, Arilova Colony, Visakhapatnam - 530 040 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad - 20 2 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Director, Vigilance and Security, Mushirabad, Hyderabad - 20 3 The Departmental Committee, Rep. by its Chief Personnel Manger, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mushirabad, Hyderabad - 20 4 Sri T.Hari Prakash, Office of the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Ranigunj-I Depot, Secunderabad. 5 Sri. Mohd.Saifuddin Khan, Office of Zonal Workshop, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 Sri M.Krishna Murthy, Office of The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District. 7 Sri Khurshid Hussain, Office of The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mehdipatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 8 Sri M.Lakshmi Narsimham, Office of The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. .....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 call for the records from the respondents No.1 to 3 and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Notiﬁcation issued by the 1st respondent vide proceedings No.SD1/255(28)/99-OP.II, dt. 16.12.1999 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary to the provisions of the Regulations of the respondents Corporation, contrary to the seniority list, arbitrary, not bonaﬁde and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India; and grant all consequential beneﬁts by holding that the petitioner in entitled for promotion to the post of Security Sub-Inspector on par with his juniors; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was working as Security Assistant Sub-Inspector in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’), has questioned the proceedings No.SD1/255(28)/99-PO.II dated 16-12-1999 issued by the 1st respondent. In the aforesaid proceedings, the Corporation has notiﬁed an approved panel of candidates for promotion to the post of Security Sub-Inspector. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is ﬁgured at item No.8 and in the column meant for ‘Remarks of Committee’, it is stated that he has not come up to the standard of selection and so he was not selected. The petitioner was initially appointed as Security Guard on 03-09-1975 and was promoted to the post of Security Head Guard in 1988 and further promoted as Security Assistant Sub-Inspector on 17-01-1994. Next post to that of the Security Assistant Sub-Inspector is the post of Security Sub- Inspector in the line of hierarchy of the posts in security wing. The said post is a selection post as per the notiﬁed regulations framed by the Corporation under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the said approved panel is prepared without following any guidelines and it is also the case of the petitioner that though he earned cash awards, the same were not taken into account and he was not given any marks by the selection committee thereto. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondents. In the counter aﬃdavit it is stated that guidelines for the selection are stipulated in Circular No.PD-15/1989 dated 13-02-1989. It is further stated that as per the service record of the petitioner maintained by the Corporation, in the last ﬁve years preceding the selections, the petitioner was censured for 1 time and was punished with deferment of annual increments without cumulative eﬀect for 4 times on account of unauthorized absence. The counter aﬃdavit also shows that the marks secured by the petitioner are ‘43’ and it is stated that as the petitioner has not secured the minimum marks of ‘50’ he was not selected so as to be empanelled in the approved panel. With regard to the allegation of the petitioner that his cash awards were not taken into account, it is stated that since the petitioner was already beneﬁted by way of cash the same were not taken into account and so is the same for all candidates who appeared for the selections. From the counter aﬃdavit it cannot be said that the selections were made without any guidelines. As per the guidelines stipulated in the Circular No.PD-15/1989, dated 13- 02-1989 the marks are earmarked to various aspects while making selections. It is categorically stated in the counter aﬃdavit that 50 marks are earmarked to Merit Rating Reports; 25 marks for length of service; 5 marks for Additional Qualiﬁcations; 5 marks for Rewards/ Appreciations; 5 marks for Special Achievements recorded in Merit Rating Reports; and 10 marks for Interview. Further, minus marks were also provided for punishment in last ﬁve years. In the counter aﬃdavit it is stated that though the petitioner was awarded ‘48’ marks, ‘5’ marks were deducted on account of the punishments suﬀered by him in the preceding ﬁve years resulting him net marks of ‘43’ only. As the petitioner did not secure the minimum marks of ‘50’, it cannot be said that he was denied illegally. The allegation of the petitioner that there were no guidelines is not correct, as the same is evident from the Circular No.PD-15/1989 dated 13-02-1989. With regard to the allegation that though ‘5’ marks are earmarked for Rewards and Appreciations, he was not given any marks on account of the cash awards received by him, it is the case of the respondents that the cash awards were not taken into account for all the candidates on the ground that such awardees were already beneﬁted by way of cash. In that view of the matter, as the cash awards were not taken into consideration for any of the candidates, it cannot be said that the respondents committed any illegality while making selections. However, it is also to be noted that the post of Security Sub-Inspector is a selection post and it all depends on the performance of the petitioner in the selections made by the duly constituted committee for that purpose. Merely because the petitioner was not selected, it cannot be said that the selections are illegal and without any basis. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th September 2008 CVRK