HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 16494 OF 2006 . DATED 30th September, 2011 BETWEEN M.Bhoopal Reddy …Petitioner And APSRTC, Musheerbad, Hyderabad Rep. by its Managing Director and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 16494 of 2006 ORDER: Challenging the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to execute contract agreement while appointing him as a driver on contract basis as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Circle No. PD.43/2000 dated 11.08.2000 and the order of this Court dated 22.2.2006 in Writ Petition No. 15326 of 2005. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the APSRTC’) on 17.03.1988 after following the stipulated procedure of selection. While so, he was removed from service on 16.01.1997 by the respondent-APSRTC on the ground that he obtained the employment by producing a fake driving licence. The Industrial Dispute raised by him in ID.No. 130 of 1997 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, came to be dismissed by its Award dated 26.11.1999 upholding the order of removal from service. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a valid driving licence No.10971, dated 17.10.1997 from the Regional Transport Officer, Bahadurpura. As matters stood thus, the first respondent issued circular No.PD.43/2000, dated 11.08.2000 basing on the settlement entered with the workers Union and instructed thereupon that all the drivers who were removed from service for possessing and producing non-genuine driving licence to obtain a fresh Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV) licence and approach the concerned Regional Managers of the APSRTC. Accordingly the petitioner submitted a representation dated 5.9.2000 enclosing a Xerox copy of his genuine driving licence dated 17.10.1997 to the second respondent. As the second respondent failed to consider the same and appoint him as a Driver, he filed Writ Petition No. 15326 of 2005 seeking a direction to provide him employment in terms of circular No.PD.43/2000, dated 11.8.2000 on par with similarly situated employees. This Court by order dated 22.2.2006 disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner as per said circular and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of the said order. Pursuant there to, the petitioner was asked to undergo training and medical test. When the petitioner had reported to duty before the third respondent as per the directions of the second respondent, the petitioner was insisted to execute a service contract agreement . Questioning the same the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to execute a service contract agreement is illegal, arbitrary and violative of their own instructions contained in circular No. PD. 43/2000, dated 11.08.2000 and also the order of this Court dated 22.2.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 15326 of 2005. He submitted that though this Court directed the respondent authorities in the earlier order dated 22.2.2006 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Circular No.PD.43/2000, dated 11.8.2000 and pass appropriate orders, but the respondents contrary to the same are insisting upon the petitioner to execute a service contract agreement. The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC while reiterating the counter averments, submitted that consequent upon the issuance of instructions in Circular No.PD.43/2000, dated 11.8.2000, further instructions in circular No.083/684(1)/2005-PO-III, dated 28.4.2005 were issued to the effect that all the removed bogus driving licence drivers should be engaged on contract basis as the Government had imposed ban on the recruitment and as such, the petitioner was instructed to execute a service contract agreement while engaging him as a Driver on contract basis in terms of the instructions in Circulars dated 11.8.2000 and dated 28.4.2005. He denied the contention of the petitioner that similarly situated Drivers who were removed on the ground of possessing and producing bogus driving licences were already taken on causal basis and their services were regularized. I have perused the instructions of the APSRTC contained in Circle No.PD.43/2000, dated 11.08.2000, which were issued upon the settlement with the workers Unions. Clause 2 thereof deals with the procedure to be followed for ensuring genuineness of driving licences of in-service drivers. Clause 3.13 postulates manifestly that the selected Drivers would be appointed afresh on casual basis. So also, Clause 3.15 lays down that the process of absorbing removed Drivers found suitable after driving test and verification of Driving Licnce for genuineness and enlisted would continue until all the eligible enlisted Drivers are absorbed against approved vacancies. Be that as it may, the respondent-APSRTC had taken a decision subsequent to the circular dated 11.08.2000 which reflected in its further instructions vide reference No.083/684(1)/2005-PO.III, dated 28.4.2005 that the removed bogus driving licence drivers should be engaged on contract basis as the Government imposed ban on recruitment. As such, the respondent-APSRTC had asked the petitioner to execute a service contract agreement. Further a perusal of the copy of the service contract agreement appended to the Writ Petition does not reflect that the terms thereof are violative of the instructions in Circular PD.No.43/2000 dated 11.8.2000 and order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15326 of 2005, dated 22.2.2006. Except pleading that the insistence of executing a service contract agreement would be violative of the instructions in the circular dated 11.8.2000 and order of this Court dated 22.2.2006, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to how and which clause of the service contract agreement are either prejudicial to him or violative of the aforesaid circular instructions and the order of this Court. It is obvious that as the Government had imposed ban on the recruitments, the respondent- APSRTC took a decision which reflected in its instructions dated 28.4.2005 to appoint the selected drivers who were removed for possessing fake driving licences while securing employment would be appointed afresh on casual basis. Further, this Court held in it earlier order thus: “ Be that is so, pendency of Writ Petition by itself is not a disqualification for consideration of the candidature for appointment as Drvier more particularly when the cases of other employees, similarly placed, were considered. Therefore the respondentNo.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of Circular No.PD.43/2000, dated 11.8.2000 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months form the date of copy of this order.” Pursuant to the said order, when the petitioner was selected to undergo training and medical test, he did so. Thereafter, when he reported to duty, he was asked to execute a service contract agreement by the APSRTC by following the circular instructions dated 11.08.2000 as well as its subsequent instructions dated 28.4.2005. A cumulative reading of these instructions vis-à-vis the action taken by the APSRTC does not reflect that the insistence of the APSRTC to the petitioner to execute a service contract agreement in my opinion is either contrary to the order of this Court dated 22.2.2006 or violative of the circular instructions dated 11.8.2000. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 30th September, 2011. Msnro