IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4695 of 1999 Between: Chitikala Veera Raghavulu, S/o. Sobhanadri, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Eluru, West Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. Regional Manager, APSRTC, West Godavari Region, Eluru, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings No.L1/876(10)/98-RM: WG, dated 12-08-1998 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the vacancy of conductor. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G. VIDYASAGAR Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C.PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings dated 12-08-1998, issued by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, West Godavari Region, Eluru, in Rc.No.L1/876(10)/98-RM: WG, wherein his claim for appointment as a displaced worker was rejected. 2. The petitioner claims to have worked as cleaner-cum- conductor on a private bus bearing No.AAP-4739, which was being plied on the route ‘Chintalapuri to Ravikampadu’, from 12-10-1986 to 30-09-1998. The said route was nationalized with effect from 01-10-1988. As a welfare measure, respondents have opened a scheme to employ the drivers and conductors working on such private buses. The owner of the bus forwarded the list of employees working on the said bus including the name of the petitioner, to the Corporation, and when the petitioner was not provided employment as a displaced worker, he ﬁled a series of writ petitions before this court, the latest being W.P.No.4090 of 2008. This court, by order dated 03-04-1998, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption into APSRTC, afresh, in terms of the scheme, after taking into account of his services and relevant documents produced by him. Pursuant to the said directions, the claim of the petitioner was considered by the selection committee and rejected on the ground that there was no proof with regard to appointment of the petitioner as a conductor. 3. Respondents have ﬁled counter aﬃdavit stating that the list of displaced persons supplied by the owner of the said bus merely shows the petitioner as a cleaner, but not as a conductor-cum-cleaner as stated by him. It is stated that though petitioner was given opportunity, he failed to produce any material before the selection committee to show that he worked as a conductor on the private bus, which was being plied on the route ‘Chintalapuri to Ravikampadu’, and therefore, his case was rejected. 4. It is evident from the counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner failed to produce any material to show that he worked as cleaner-cum-conductor on the private bus. Moreover, it is to be noted that the route in question was nationalized with eﬀect from 01-10-1988, however, the petitioner obtained conductor’s licence only on 23-08-1990. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that, by obtaining conductor’s licence nearly after two years after the route in question was nationalized, the petitioner is trying to gain employment in the scheme, which is extended for the beneﬁt of genuinely displaced persons. Further, the petitioner also did not get any certiﬁcation from the Labour Enforcement Oﬃcer as required under the scheme. In that view of the matter, the petitioner does not ﬁt into the scheme in question. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. August 11, 2008 MRR