*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12547 of 2008 % 04-08-2008 Between: # Venkata Ramulu ... PETITIONER AND $ The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director and another. ...RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12547 of 2008 Between: Mr. Venkata Ramulu S/. Eshwaraiah R/o. Yadireddypalli Post and Village, Tadoor Mandal, Mahaboobnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Mahaboobnagar Region, Mahaboobnagar 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 will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ i) declaring the proceedings No. LC1/785/WP(40)/2000-RM:MBNR dt. 12-1-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and biased and consequently set aside the same with further direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Shramik/Cleaner or any other suitable post in pursuance of the Oﬃce Order No. P3/255(3)/98-RM:MBNR dt. 21-9-1998 or the selection notiﬁcation dt. 22nd September, 2000 with all consequential beneﬁts including arrears of salary and pass other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner has undergone apprenticeship training in the Zonal Work Shop of the A.P.S.R.T.C. during 1991-1992. In June, 1998, the respondents issued a notiﬁcation, inviting applications for the post of Shramik. Alleging that the apprenticeship certiﬁcate held by the petitioner is not satisfactory, his case was not considered at that time, though he was otherwise eligible to be appointed. Thereafter, recruitment for the post of Shramik/Cleaner took place in the year 2000. Interviews were held on 19.09.2000. In a list of 20 selected candidates, the petitioner ﬁgured at Serial No.14. However, he was not issued order of appointment, on the ground that an interim order was passed in W.P.No.17811 of 2000, directing that seven posts of Shramiks/Cleaners shall be kept vacant, until further orders. The petitioner approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.24866 2002. It was disposed of on 16.12.2002 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 08.10.2000, for appointment. Alleging that the same was not implemented, the petitioner ﬁled C.C.No.1064 of 20003. At this stage, the Regional Manager, the second respondent herein, addressed a letter, dated 05.09.2003, stating that the case of the petitioner could not be considered, on account of the interim orders passed in W.P.No.17811 of 2000. After W.P.No.17811 of 2000 was dismissed on 30.01.2006 by this Court, the petitioner approached the second respondent. This time, he was informed, vide proceedings, dated 12.01.2007, that the validity of the panel, in which the petitioner was included, had expired. It was also stated that the activities of Shramiks are being outsourced and the direct recruitment of Shramiks was banned. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner states that the stand taken by the second respondent from time to time was contrary to record. It is stated that in proceedings, dated 05.09.2003, the respondents denied appointment to the petitioner on the plea that there was an order of stay, whereas the interim order passed in WP No.17811 of 2000 stood vacated on 13.06.2002 itself. It is also stated that the respondents cannot take advantage of their own inaction or lapses. The respondents ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit virtually repeating the grounds mentioned in the impugned order, dated 12.01.2007. It is stated that it is not possible for them to operate the panel prepared in the year 2000, at this stage. Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. For all practical purposes, the petitioner became the victim of the apathy and the inconsistent approach of the respondents. To certain extent, the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17811 of 2000 was used as a device by the respondents to defeat the rights of the petitioner. After passing the I.T.I. (Turner) course and undergoing apprenticeship in the Corporation itself, the petitioner was awaiting an opportunity to get employed. In the year 1998, he was denied the appointment on a lame excuse that the certiﬁcate issued by the Corporation itself was doubtful. By the time they realized that the certiﬁcate was genuine, the recruitment was completed and the petitioner was required to wait till the next recruitment takes place. Honestly, the petitioner waited for the next recruitment, which took place in the year 2000. He was selected and included at Serial No.14 in the list of 20 selected candidates. Then came an excuse for the respondents to deny the appointment in the form of an interim order passed by this Court. The second respondent lied not only to the petitioner, but also to this Court by pleading the interim order as an excuse to deny the appointment to the petitioner, through his letter, dated 05.09.2003. It is a matter of record that the interim order in W.P.No.17811 of 2000 was vacated on 13.06.2002. It needs to be noted that the letter, dated 05.09.2003, came to be issued at a stage when the petitioner ﬁled C.C.No.1064 of 2003. In a way, the second respondent has committed perjury and was liable to be prosecuted. The second respondent had coolly informed to the petitioner that the panel expired long back. There cannot be a better example of arbitrariness than this. Even a private individual could not have dealt with a person, who approaches him for employment, in such a shabby, illegal, arbitrary and outrageous manner as the second respondent who was leading the unit of a reputed Corporation. As though the lame excuse of lapse of panel was not suﬃcient, he pressed the other grounds, such as the practice of outsourcing being undertaken by the Corporation and ban on regular appointments. This Court takes serious exception to the action of the second respondent in denying the appointment to the petitioner on one pretext or the other, even after being empanelled in the year 2000. The ban cannot operate against the petitioner, who was selected much before the imposition thereof. Had it been a case where the same incumbent was holding the post of Regional Manager now, this Court would have considered the feasibility of making him personally responsible for the injustice caused to the petitioner. It is stated that there is change in incumbency. The writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to pass necessary orders on the basis of the panel in the year 2000, in which the name of the petitioner ﬁgured at Serial No.14, without referring to any grounds mentioned in the impugned order, within a period of two months from today. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.08.2008 Note: LR copy to be marked. (B/o) kdl To 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Mahaboobnagar Region, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 Two CD copies