HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 309 OF 2003 Dated: 09-10-2009 Between: The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Raja Raje Narendra Region, Vizianagaram and three others ... APPELLANTS AND G.V.N. Raju ... RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2003 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal has been filed against order dated 20-03-2002 in Writ Petition No. 2150 of 1992. Heard Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellants. There has been no representation on behalf of the respondent – writ petitioner on 15-09-2009 and also today. The facts in brief are that the respondent joined the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) as a Cleaner on 27-12-1975. He was given appointment with effect from 18-11-1975. On 28-09-1979, he was promoted as Helper with effect from 10-10-1979. On 30-11-1987, the respondent was promoted as Electrician on emergency basis under Regulation 30 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966. The respondent who was posted in Visakhapatnam was allowed to retain in Visakhapatnam as Electrician. On 24-07-1989, Visakhapatnam Division was bifurcated into Visakhapatnam (Urban) and Visakhapatnam (Rural) Divisions with effect from 01-12-1987. The Corporation called for options from its employees for being posted at the respective divisions. The respondent has opted for Visakhapatnam (Urban) Division. Accordingly, he was posted in Visakhapatnam (Urban) Division as Helper, which was the substantive post held by him. Feeling aggrieved by denial of the post of Electrician, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 2150 of 1992. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, wherein he held that while posting the respondent as Helper, the Corporation failed to consider that he was working as Electrician at the time of actual bifurcation. Accordingly, a direction was given to post the respondent as Electrician in Visakhapatnam (Urban) Division. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel submitted that as the respondent’s promotion was purely temporary, effected on account of the exigencies of the situation due to nationalization of routes in Visakhapatnam area, the respondent did not have any right to insist that he should have been posted as Electrician in Visakhapatnam (Urban) Division, because he was holding the substantive post of Helper. The learned Standing Counsel however brought to our notice that during the pendency of this writ appeal, a regular vacancy of Electrician had arisen and the respondent was appointed substantively in the said vacancy. In view of this development, it is not necessary for us to adjudicate the writ appeal on merits. However, it is left to the Corporation to decide the inter se seniority between the respondent and other employees, after giving opportunity to all the affected parties, including the respondent. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of the appeal, WAMP No.542 of 2003, filed by the appellants for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09-10-2009 ks