IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 16044 of 1999 Between: B.Thimmappa, S/o. Savarappa. R/o. Ieeza, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mahabuubnagar. 2 Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad East Zone, Andhra Pradesh. 3 Additional Licensing Authority, Transport Department, Mahaboobnagar. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in saying that the Driving license produced by the petitioner as bogus and not giving posting orders on that grounds as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents No.1 to consider the claims of the petitioner for appointment of Driver Grade-II and pass such other order or oders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not giving him the posting orders as Grade-II Driver consequent to the selections for the post of Grade-II Driver as illegal and arbitrary. Pursuant to the selections made by the Regional Oﬃce of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mahaboobnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’), the petitioner was selected as Grade-II Driver and consequent to the selection, he was also sent for medical examination and training, but however, after medical examination and training, he was not given any appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that the driving licence produced by him was initially issued by the oﬃce of the second respondent, but subsequently transferred to the oﬃce of the third respondent as he has changed his residence. It is stated that the action of the Corporation in not issuing him the posting orders on the premise that the licence produced by him was not a correct one is illegal and arbitrary. Respondents 1 to 3 ﬁled separate counter aﬃdavits. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the second respondent, it is categorically stated that the petitioner was issued driving licence bearing No.3320/HE/82 to drive the Medium Goods Vehicle on 04-02-1982 and Heavy Goods Vehicle on 20-11-1984 and further the driving licence was renewed from time to time up to 1991. But, it is also categorically stated that the endorsement of Heavy Passenger Vehicle licence dated 15-07-1991 and the renewal vide C.No.104958/ A4/HE/91 were not issued by his oﬃce and so the said transactions are not genuine and that fact was also informed to the Additional Superintendent on duty as Vigilance and Security Oﬃcer, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad Zone JBS, Picket, Secunderabad, vide his office reference dated 09-09-1998 and 27-02-1998. It is not in dispute that as per the service Regulations there is a requirement of Heavy Passenger Vehicle driving licence for recruitment to the post of Driver Grade-II. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the licence possessed by him was issued by the oﬃce of the second respondent and subsequently renewed by the oﬃce of the third respondent, the second respondent in his counter aﬃdavit has categorically stated that the petitioner was licenced only to drive Medium Goods Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle in 1982 and 1984 respectively. Further with regard to the endorsement of Heavy Passenger Vehicle licence, it is stated that the oﬃce of the second respondent has not made endorsement and the said transaction is not genuine one. Though counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled as early as on 03-12-1999 till date there is no reply disputing the said averment of the second respondent. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he obtained renewal with regard to Heavy Passenger Vehicle licence from the oﬃce of the third respondent in Mahaboobnagar District in continuation to the endorsement by the oﬃce of the second respondent, the very making of such endorsement and its renewal vide C.No.104958/A4/HE/91 is disputed by the second respondent. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be said to be holding a valid driving licence to drive Heavy Passenger Vehicle for the purpose of seeking employment in the Corporation. In the absence of such a valid driving licence, which is a requisite condition for appointment to the post of Driver Grade-II, I do not ﬁnd any illegality on the part of Corporation in not issuing posting order to the petitioner pursuant to his selection. Mere selection will not confer on him any right for appointment in the Corporation. However, the selection will be subject to scrutiny of all requisite documents and when it has come to the notice of the Corporation that he has no valid driving licence, it is always open for the Corporation to revise his appointment. The writ petition is thus devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J September 18, 2008 CVRK