IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9471 of 2000 Between: Vanjarapur Venkateswara Rao, S/o Narayana, R/o kandaveedhi, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice-chairmen & Managing Director A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Regional Manager,Vizianagaram. 3 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.,Vizianagaram. .....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 appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not appointing the petitioner as Conductor/Driver in the corporation as displaced employee, is bad and illegal and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as a driver in regular basis in the services of the corporation and pass such other just orders in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.KURITIBHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : MR.C.APPAIAH SHARMA The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not appointing him as a Conductor or Driver in the Corporation as a displaced employee, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a Driver with M/s.Bhavanputra Bus Services, for driving the bus bearing No.ADN-5497 on the route from Srikakulam to Baljeepeta via Rajam. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of Nationalisation of the said route in the year 1987, he lost employment. Though there is a scheme for appointment of such displaced persons in the Corporation, and the petitioner fits into the said scheme, his case was not considered. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the owner of the vehicle bearing No.ADN-5497 has submitted the guide-sheet showing the employees worked on the said bus. The name of the petitioner did not figure in the said guide-sheet submitted by the owner of the bus. It is further stated that as per the scheme, six candidates were already appointed in connection with the said bus, two as Drivers and four as Conductors. Further, it is stated that the 2nd respondent has issued Proceedings, dated 16.07.1998, stating that as per Circular No.61/98 issued by the Corporation, ban was imposed on the absorption of displaced employees into the service of the Corporation. 4. Though the petitioner is seeking directions for appointment, but however, it is to be noted that even as per the owner’s statement and the particulars given in the guide-sheet, the name of the petitioner did not figure. In any event, as it is stated that six persons were already appointed, no directions can be given going beyond the number of posts for which the scheme benefits can be extended on each bus. Further, it is also stated in the counter that there is a ban imposed on recruiting the displaced persons. In view of the policy decision, and after this length of time, no directions can be given for appointment of the petitioner as prayed for. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th February 2009. ajr