THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1838 OF 2003 DATED 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN The Regional Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Srikakulam Regional, Srikakulam. …Appellant And M.Suryanarayana …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1838 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per GM,J) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 27.03.2003 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.27167 of 1999, whereunder and whereby the appellant/respondent was inter alia directed to issue orders appointing the respondent/writ petitioner to a suitable post within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he worked as a Cleaner from the year 1984 to 1987, that is, till the date of nationalization of the route of a private bus bearing No.ADP-434 and therefore he became a displaced employee. It is his further case that the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) evolved a scheme to provide employment to the displaced employees in view of nationalization of bus routes after identifying them. The APSRTC issued guidelines in this regard in Circular No.PD-75/1983-84 dated 10.11.1983 for absorption of genuine displaced employees. His complaint is that though he was identified as a genuine displaced employee, his case was not considered. The writ petitioner in the first instance approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.34934 of 1997 complaining of the inaction of the appellant in considering his case for appointment to the post of a Cleaner or any other suitable post on the basis of the said Circular dated 10.11.1983. Placing reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court wherein directions were issued to the APSRTC, respondent therein, to the effect that all the employees of the buses in respect of which permits had been cancelled due to nationalization of those routes, should be absorbed in its service and till those persons were absorbed, no outsider shall be appointed, the said writ petition was disposed of on 05.03.1998 directing the appellant to consider the case of the writ petitioner in the immediate future vacancies and pass appropriate orders absorbing him in service. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No.1436 of 1998, which was disposed of by Judgment dated 08.09.1998 recording the fact that the petitioner’s case had been considered by the APSRTC and therefore the order impugned therein did not warrant interference. Thus, the order dated 05.03.1998 passed in W.P.No.34934 of 1997 attained finality. Notwithstanding the same, the writ petitioner was not appointed in any one of the vacancies. Hence, the subject W.P. No.21167 of 1999 was filed which was disposed of under the impugned order. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/ respondent and the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. The learned standing counsel for the appellant/respondent submitted that the writ petitioner had not produced any proof to show that he was a displaced employee and that he was not selected by any duly constituted Selection Committee. He contended that the learned single Judge failed to see that the route in question was nationalized in the year 1987 but the petitioner approached this Court only in the year 1997 by way of W.P.No.34934 of 1997, that is, after a long lapse of ten years. He therefore prayed that the writ appeal be allowed. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the learned single Judge, taking note of the earlier order dated 05.03.1998 passed by this Court in W.P.No.34934 of 1997 which attained finality, disposed of the subject writ petition by the impugned order and that the same does not warrant interference by this Court. Thus, he sought dismissal of the writ appeal. We have perused the order under challenge passed by the learned single Judge and also the material placed on record. The learned Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, observed thus: “It is to be seen that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.34934 of 1997 dated 05.03.1998, which has become final, it is not open for the respondents to raise another plea without complying the said directions. Further it is not open for the respondents to take shelter under the ban for not considering the case of the petitioner to suitable post. It is not disputed that process was begun to consider the case of the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed in Writ Petition No.34934 of 1997 dated 05.03.1998 and he also underwent training five weeks, which is evident from the proceedings dated 19.02.1999 issued by the Principal, Zonal Staff Training College, Vizianagaram. In fact, in the earlier, on 28.08.1999, the petitioner was addressed a letter by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Srikakulam directing him to join the office on 04.09.1998 along with relevant certificates. In view of the said exercise, it is not now open for the respondent to plead that the said orders were issued in ignorance of the ban, more particularly when the earlier judgment dated 05.03.1998 has become final. ………” It is obvious from the above that the learned single Judge, taking note of the order dated 05.03.1998 passed by this Court in W.P.No.34934 of 2007 and that fact the writ petitioner underwent training for five weeks and thereafter a communication was sent directing him to join the office on 04.09.1998 with the relevant certificates, disposed of the writ petition directing the appellant to issue orders appointing the writ petitioner in a suitable post. The learned single Judge also took note of the observation made by a Division Bench in its Judgment dated 08.09.1998 passed in Writ Appeal No.1436 of 1998 to the effect that the writ petitioner’s case had been considered by the APSRTC and therefore the order dated 05.03.1998 passed in W.P.No.34934 of 1997 did not warrant interference. In the light of this factual scenario, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge in the impugned order, the order dated 05.03.1998 passed in W.P.No.34934 of 1997 attained finality. That being so, it is not open to the appellant at this stage to contend that the writ petitioner was not a displaced employee; that he was not selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee and that he approached this Court in the first instance after a lapse of ten years from the date of nationalization of the subject route. Thus, we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order, which we uphold accordingly. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. VGSR/PGS