IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9452 of 2008 Between: B.Narasimha Rao S/o. Pullaiah R/o. 28-17-27, Eluru Road, Rma Mandiram Street, Vijayawada,Krishna Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyd. 2 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Kurnool Region, Kurnool, Kurnool Dist. 3 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Atmakur Depot, Kurnool Dist. .....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 an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner without referring the application dt.25-12-2000 made by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner case for appoint to the post of Electrician as a fresh and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.9452 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was working as Electrician in the Atmakur Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for remaining absent, for different spells. Ultimately vide order dated 15-02-1988, the 3rd respondent removed the petitioner from service. The departmental remedies of appeal and review were not fruitful, and accordingly, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Ananthapur, by filing I.D.No.318 of 1988, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court dismissed the I.D., through its Award dated 16-03-1990. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6343 of 1990. The writ petition was also dismissed on 05-12-2000, and it was left open to the petitioner to make an application, within one month from the date of the order; to the respondents, with a request to appoint him as a fresh candidate. The petitioner made such an application in the year 2005. The 2nd respondent rejected the same, vide order dated 21-10-2005. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri K. Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Labour Court, as well as this Court upheld the order of removal, passed against the petitioner. An observation was made by this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, to the effect that, in case the petitioner makes an application, within a period of one month from the date of the order, the respondents shall consider the feasibility of appointing him as a fresh candidate. The petitioner remained silent for about five years, and he made such a representation only in the year 2005. The indulgence shown by this Court, was, itself, some-what extraordinary, and even while upholding the order of removal, an opportunity was given to the petitioner, to make a representation to appoint him as a fresh candidate. It is totally a different thing, as to whether the respondents would have appointed the petitioner as a fresh candidate, in case an application was made, within the time stipulated by this Court. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner did not move the matter, for a period of five years. Thereby, he lost the opportunity given by this Court also. The petitioner has to squarely blame himself, for such a lapse. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 28-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}