IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29865 of 2011 Between: R.Srinivas … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Secunderabad Division, JBS., Picket, Secunderabad and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29865 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring inaction of the respondents in considering the case of the petitioner for regularization on par with petitioner colleagues and juniors as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization by considering the representation dated 14.09.2011. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis in the respondents Corporation in the month of February, 2008 at Medchal Depot. After some time, the 2nd respondent, Depot Manager, issued termination order dated 17.12.2008 on the ground of certain cash and ticket irregularities. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager and the same was rejected on 24.01.2009 without assigning any reasons. Thereafter, he filed a revision before the 1st respondent, Regional Manager, and the same was also rejected on 06.06.2009. Thereafter, having no other alternative, he filed W.P. No.27491 of 2009 and the said writ petition, while setting aside the impugned order therein, was disposed of by this Court on 27.12.2009 leaving it open to the Corporation to initiate fresh proceedings following due process of law. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into service by order dated 12.07.2010 of the 2nd respondent. While the things stood thus, it is submitted that some of the candidates, who were appointed along with the petitioner and his juniors services were regularized and whereas the services of the petitioner was not regularized. Therefore, he made a representation dated 14.09.2011 with the request to consider his case for regularization but no action has been initiated thereon. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the colleagues of the petitioner and his juniors were regularized but the case of the petitioner for regularization has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.09.2011 to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent did not pass any orders thereon. Therefore, the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation would submit that it is not know whether the services of the juniors of the petitioner were regularized or not but however, he submitted that having regard to the fact stated by the petitioner in his affidavit that he made a representation to the 2nd respondent and the same is pending with him, the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Corporation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 14.09.2011 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 09.11.2011 LSK