IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 14738 of 2009 Between: 1 G. Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. Ramana, Hindu, Staff No. 92138, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2 Addala Narsimha Rao, S/o. Venkata Ratnam, Hindu, Staff No. 92138, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 3 M. Gopala Krishnam Raju, S/o. Hindu, Staff No. 109354, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 4 Gadiraju Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, S/o. Seetharam Raju, Hindu, Staff No. 351120, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 5 Ch. Venkata Reddy, S/o. Raghava Reddy, Hindu. Staff No. 321123, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 6 Illindla Venkata Seetharamanjaneyulu, S/o. Venkata Toramacharyulu, Hindu. Staff No. 352073, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 7 Chinnu Peddi Raju, S/o. Ganga Raju, Hindu. Staff No.352280, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 8 N. Veera Swamy, S/o. Samba Murthy, Hindu. Staff No. 352298s, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 9 Ch. Srinivasulu, S/o. Gandhi, Hindu. Staff No. 352306, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 10 N. Murali Krishnam Raju, S/o. Subba Raju, Hindu. Staff No. 352875, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 11 P. Venkata Seetharamanjaneyulu, S/o. Venkateshwara Rao, Hindu. Staff No. 353538, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 12 Duggirala Venkata Sesha Kumar, S/o. Venkateshwara Rao, Hindu. Staff No. 376222, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 13 Chukka Nageshwaara Rao, S/o. Jala Chandrudu, Hindu. Staff No. 376179, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 14 G. Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. Rama Rao, Hindu. Staff No. 376180, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 15 Guduru Venkata Murali Krishnam Raju, S/o. Chinna Suryanarayana Raju, Hindu. Staff No. 376052, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 16 K. Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Venkat Rao, Hindu. Staff No. 376263, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 17 V. Venkat Satyanarayana, S/o. Ramanudu, Hindu. Staff No. 376392, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 18 Kukkala Laxminarayana, S/o. Anjaneyulu Hindu. Staff No. 455156, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 19 K. Sri Rama Murthy, S/o. Suryanarayana, Hindu. Staff No. 501171, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 20 K. Rama Rao, S/o. Pydiyya, Hindu. Staff No. 501174, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 21 Kodi Seshagiri Rao, S/o. Venkteshwara Rao, Hindu. Staff No. 501181, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 22 Donga Murali Krishna, S/o. Venkanna, Hindu. Staff No. 501308, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 23 Allam Satyanarayana, S/o. Swamy, Hindu. Staff No. 457068, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC"X" Roads, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada Vizianagaram Zone, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., West Godavari Region, Eluru. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bhimavaram Bus Depot, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 5 The Chief Inspector/Assistant Manager, A.P. S.R.T.C., Bhimavaram Bus Depot, Bhimavaram, West Godavari 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 issue a Writ, order or direction, particualrly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents innot accepting the applications of the petitioners for re-allotment of routes and proceeding to implement the routes which were already prepared by the 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequenty direct the 5th respondent to accept the applcations of the petitioners afresh for re- allotment of the routes by cancelling the allotments already made by the 5th respondent Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not accepting the applications of the petitioners for re-allotment of routes and proceeding to implement the routes, which were already prepared by respondent No.5, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondent No.5 to accept the applications of the petitioners afresh for re-allotment of the routes by cancelling, the allotments already made by respondent No.5. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioners have been working as Conductors in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhimavaram Depot i.e., respondent No.4 and they are members of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Union. It appears that there is a practice that the authorities are inviting option applications from the employees asking them to give options to work in one particular route for a period of one year and that applications have to be submitted to respondent No.5 and after the due date, respondent No.5 will scrutinize the same and allot the routes, as per the option given by the employee by following the seniority. 3. In that process, on 24.06.2009, respondent No.5 called for option applications from all the drivers and conductors for the purpose of allotting routes as per the options and the last date to submit those applications was 01.07.2009 by 5.00 P.M. After the due date and after scrutinization of the applications, when the petitioners were not allotted the routes as per the options given by them, they approached higher authorities and respondent No.2 assured them that he would direct an enquiry into the matter. Accordingly, on the directions of respondent No.2, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer reported that he did not find the option applications of the petitioners. Aggrieved of the same, under the impression that the rival union members might have removed their option applications, petitioners, filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that option applications of the petitioners might have been removed intentionally from the drop box of the option applications and thereby the petitioners, who are senior conductors, have lost their option in allotment of routes, which is illegal and against the principles of natural justice, as such, re-allotment of the routes as per the seniority has to be ordered calling for fresh option applications from the petitioners. 5. Learned standing counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that an enquiry was conducted and during the course of enquiry, it came to light that the petitioners gave their option applications to the Secretary of their Union and it appears that the Union Secretary did not forward the same to the authorities within the stipulated time for the purpose of finalizing the routes and for that reason, after scrutinizing the available applications with the authorities, the routes were allotted as per the seniority. 6. In the normal circumstances, every driver and conductor would give their option application opting the route of their choice during the year. Apparently, it appears that there was some communication gap and as rightly contended by the learned standing counsel, the petitioners might have given their applications to the Union Secretary, who did not forward the same to the authorities concerned, for which the petitioners shall not be put to risk. However, as the routes were finalized very recently, it may not be difficult for the authorities to re-arrange the routes as per the seniority, this Court is of the view that the petitioners may be given one more opportunity to opt their routes by entertaining fresh applications along with all other conductors and finalize the routes as per the seniority and the rules. 7. In the result, the 5th respondent may call for the option applications from all the conductors, including the petitioners, afresh and give them an opportunity to submit their option applications directly to the 5th respondent. On such applications, the 5th respondent is hereby directed to scrutinize them and allot the routes as per option given by the employee by following the seniority and the rules. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) July 24, 2009 KSH