IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15418 of 1999 Between: R. Chinnaiah, S/o Chinnaiah, R/o Balkonda Village, Armoor Tq., Nizamabad District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20. 2 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Karimnagar Zone, Karimnagar. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the 2nd respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Order passed by the 2nd respondent in procs.No.LC/P3/G1/331(20)/92-ED:KR, dt: 1-6-99 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law, discriminatory, in voialtion of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.15418 of 1999 Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the order dated 01-06-1999 passed by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Karimnagar Zone, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rejecting his claim for appointment to the post of attender/office boy. 2. In the year 1988, the respondent-Corporation called for applications for filling up certain posts through the employment exchange. The petitioner, who was sponsored through the employment exchange, was selected to the post of Conductor. However, he was not appointed on the ground that he was not declared medically fit. Aggrieved thereby, he filed W.P.No.4334 of 1991 before this court and this court by order dated 02-08-1991 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of office boy or any other equivalent post in the existing or any future vacancies. In compliance of the aforesaid order, respondents have considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment by the impugned order stating that with regard to recruitment to the post of attenders and sweepers there is a ban imposed in the Corporation. It was further stated therein that as per the communal roster, 9 points were filled up and the next vacancy for physically handicapped will arise at 31st point. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the aforesaid order passed by this court, he was deprived the benefit of appointment, while certain other persons by name G. Ramesh, Smt. Sajida Begum and Smt. Kusuma Kumari were given the benefit of appointment. 4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents reiterating the stand that there is a ban imposed in the Corporation for filling up vacancies. It is stated that in absence of any vacancies, particularly, which are reserved for physically handicapped, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any appointment. 5. As is evident from the averments made in the counter affidavit there is a ban in the respondent-Corporation for filling up the vacant posts. With regard to the instances cited by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, namely, appointment of certain candidates in the Corporation, respondents have explained in the counter affidavit stating that Sri R. Ramesh, originally a Driver, was appointed as Attender due to amputation of his right arm in an accident. It is stated that so far as other two candidates, i.e. Smt. Kusuma Kumari and Smt. Sajida Begum, are concerned they were appointed on compassionate grounds in the then existing scheme as they are the spouses of deceased employees. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that he is being discriminated from similarly situated persons cannot be accepted. The petitioner, who is not in service, cannot equate himself with the persons appointed under different schemes and serving in the respondent- Corporation. When the respondent-Corporation has maintained a specific stand that due to ban there are no vacancies and as such no appointments are being made, which are reserved for physically handicapped, in the category of office boy/attender etc., this court cannot compel the respondents to fill up such posts and appoint the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any valid ground to grant relief as prayed for. 6. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. August 22, 2008 MRR