IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 29795 of 1998 Between: Smt.K.Jyothi Prakash, W/o. M.Venkateswar rao, R/o.6-160/1, J.P.Colony, Petancheru , Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Regional Manger Medak Region A.P.S.R.T.C., Sanga Reddy , Medak District 2 Personnel Officer A.P.S.R.T.C., Sanga Reddy , Medak Region. .....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 directions more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner as a conductor grade-II, in APSRTC Medak region is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to select the petitioner as conductor Grade-II in APSRTC, Medak region, and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.29795 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled by the candidate who appeard for the selections for the post of Conductor, Grade-II, in the respondents-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’) vide application No.2560, and also appeared to the interview held on 15-09-1998. She, belongs to O.C. category, claims to be a permanent resident of Patancheru, Medak District. 2. It is averred in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition that she is residing at Patancheru, Medak District, from the date of her marriage. Prior to that, her father, late Surya Prakash Rao, who hailed from Panthangi village of Nalgonda District, died about 17 years back and then her mother along with the petitioner came to reside at Nandigama village, Medak District, which is her grandmother’s native place. She claims that she secured 78.6% marks in the S.S.C. examination, among 192 candidates who were selected for 200 vacancies, sought to be ﬁlled up in the selection for the posts of Conductors, Grade-II. She alleges that the candidates, who obtained marks of 73.8%, were also selected in preference to the petitioner who has secured higher marks. She has approached this Court by way of this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondent-Corporation in not selecting her, as arbitrary and illegal and for consequential direction. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition passed a reasoned interim order in W.P.M.P.No.36427 of 1998, dated 03-03-1999, directing the respondents-Corporation to reserve one post of Conductor, Grade-II, unﬁlled in Medak Region, pending further orders. The said interim order is continued even till now. 4. The respondents-Corporation ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, primarily contending that the Corporation has issued two Circulars dated 05-08-1988 and 13-11-1997, requiring candidates to submit residence certiﬁcate from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer in proof of their local candidature. It is further averred that the recruitment is made in Medak District and as such, as per the very Notiﬁcation, published in the newspapers, and the said Circular instructions, candidates residing in the Medak District, were alone are eligible. While the percentage of marks secured by the petitioner in the S.S.C. examination, was not disputed, the selection of the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioner was disputed. It was, however, pleaded by the respondents-Corporation, that the petitioner produced a residence Certiﬁcate, which certiﬁes that the petitioner is residing in Patancheru since 1993 and the same being not a local candidate certiﬁcate as contemplated by the Circulars referred to above, selection committee treated that the petitioner is not a local candidate of a Medal District and thereby she was not selected. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the interview call letter issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent, dated 01-09-1998, where under, she was asked to appear for the interview and to get certiﬁcates and documents listed as items 1 to 6 in the said intimation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress on the 1st item, which reads as follows: “1. You should bring all original certiﬁcates viz., SSC, Caste Certiﬁcate, Certiﬁcate of residence, Employment card for verification.” and contended that the certiﬁcate of residence was required and it was produced by the petitioner admittedly. The insistence by the respondents-Corporation for production of the local candidate’s certiﬁcate was not required. Further, the other documents, annexed in the material papers are ﬁled to substantiate the case of the petitioner that the M.R.O. has certiﬁed the residence certiﬁcate at Patancheru and that the Election Identity Card as well as copies of Secondary School Certiﬁcate, which were produced before the respondents-Corporation, are also annexed to the affidavit. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel on 14-08-2008 and 22-08-2008. 7. It is a fact that the call letter relied on by the petitioner’s counsel does support his contention that what was required to the petitioner is only a residence certiﬁcate and not the certiﬁcate as referred to in the counter-aﬃdavit by the Corporation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner produced the requisite residence certiﬁcate. However, apart from the said aspect, it is note-worthy that the recruitment in the respondent-Corporation is covered by A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 (for short ‘the Regulations’), and Regulation 8 (1) thereof, provides that any citizen of India could apply to the post in the establishment of A.P.S.R.T.C., The preference shall be given to the candidates who were residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh. She is, therefore, eligible to be considered for appointment under Regulation 8 (1) of the Regulations, referred to above. The respondents- Corporation, therefore, cannot resort to further classiﬁcation among the local candidates by classifying the local candidates district-wise. If such contention is allowed on the same analogy, the classiﬁcation would further trickle-down from district- wise classiﬁcation, taluk-wise classiﬁcation, village-wise classiﬁcation etc. and would give absurd results. 8. The learned standing counsel for the respondents-Corporation contended that under Regulation 8 (1) of the Regulations, no doubt, recruitment is open to all citizens of India, but subject to such classification as the Corporation may choose to make. 9. The aforesaid contention runs counter to the intention behind the Regulation 8 (4) of the Regulations which speciﬁes that preference is allowable in case of local candidates i.e. residents of Andhra Pradesh. The intention behind, Regulation 8 (4) of the Regulations, therefore, negatives the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation as above. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation that two circulars dated 05-08-1988 and 1-11-1997, referred to in the counter-aﬃdavit of the respondents-Corporation are in conformity with the Regulation 8 (1) of the Regulations, is also not sustainable, as discussed above. 10. In a some-what similar situation, this aspect was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in G.SRINIVAS v. REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, NALGONDA DISTRICT AND ANOTHER[1], wherein, the employee, recruited by the A.P.S.R.T.C. in the Nalgonda Region, was given a show-cause-notice for termination on the ground that he was found to be native of West Godavari District. The said show-cause notice was quashed by this Court on the ground that it violates the Regulation 8 (1) and (4) of the Regulations. The ratio of the said decision equally applies to this case and therefore, I am of the view that the impugned action of the respondents-Corporation in not considering the petitioner’s candidature for the aforesaid selection, for the post of Conductor, Grade-II, is not in accordance with law and consequently, a direction is issued to the respondents-Corporation to consider the petitioner’s candidature to the said post without insisting upon for being a local candidate of Medak District and consider her candidature, if she is otherwise eligible for the same, in terms of the selection process already undergone. 11. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. ________________ 06-09-2008 kvr [1] 1998 (6) ALD 9