IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13705 of 2008 Between: J. Seetaram, S/o. Somla Naiak, E.No. 310542, R/o. 1-4-172/8/3, Adharshnagar, Nirmal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Adilabad Region, Adilabad. 3 The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, APSRTC, Adilabad Region, Adilabad District. 4 N. Srinivas, E.No. 310571, Bhinsa, Adilabad District. 5 P.N. Swamy, E.NO. 850262, APSRTC Bus Depot, Asifabad, Adilabad District. .....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 an appropriate Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in promoting the 4th respondent to the pot of Electricialn (DC) as well as P.N. Swamy vide impugned notification E2/255(5)/2006-RM ADB dated 16-05-2008 as illegal, unjust,in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as in violation of APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Reg. 1963 and consequenty direct the respondents to consider the petitioner case for the post of electrician (DC) along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13705 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Helper in the Nirmal Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. The 2nd respondent has taken steps to fill six posts of Electricians (D.C.) in Adilabad region. Shramiks and Helpers are made eligible to apply for the same. A list of candidates was prepared and sent to the office of the 2nd respondent, for the purpose of conducting trade test. The petitioner states that though himself and 9 candidates were directed to attend the trade test, the 4th respondent and two other candidates did not turn up. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 16.05.2008, empanelling eight candidates, including respondents 4 and 5, for appointment as Electricians. The petitioner was shown as not qualified. He challenges the notification, on the ground that while he was disqualified, the 4th respondent, who did not even attend the trade test, was selected. It is also contended that respondents 4 and 5 have already been selected as Mechanics and they are not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Electrician. The petitioner claims to have made a representation, dated 28.05.2008, pointing out his grievance, and complains that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The various contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner need to be examined by the 2nd respondent. This Court cannot delve into them, at this stage. The 2nd respondent, who incidentally is the authority, who issued the impugned proceedings, would be in a better position to verify the facts with reference to the record and inform the petitioner about the result of such verification. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation, dated 28.05.2008, made by the petitioner, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 30.06.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13705 of 2008 Date: 30.06.2008 JSU