THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.20336 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner joined as Conductor, in the year 1991, in the A.P.S.R.T.C. On 01.08.2009, he made a request to the Depot Manager, Nalgonda, the 3rd respondent herein, to send him for medical examination, stating that he is suffering from ill-health. That request was acceded to and the Medical Officer certified on 04.08.2009 to the effect that the petitioner is unfit to discharge the duties of Conductor. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application, dated 06.08.2009, stating that he can be retired from service, on medical grounds and, that he would not claim alternative employment, nor to approach any Court. Taking the same into account the 3rd respondent, passed an order, dated 07.08.2009, retiring the petitioner from service, on medical grounds, in terms of Regulation 6(A) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964. About six months later, the petitioner filed an application on 22.02.2010, before the 3rd respondent, stating that he has become medically fit to discharge the duties and requested that he be taken into service. The 3rd respondent referred the matter to the Regional Manager, Nalgonda Region, the 2nd respondent. The latter made an endorsement, on 01.07.2010, to the effect that there is no provision for re-employing Conductors, who are retired on medical grounds. The petitioner challenges both the proceedings. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Writ Petition is not maintainable for more reasons than one. Firstly, the petitioner did not assail the order, dated 07.08.2009, passed by the 3rd respondent. If one takes the recitals therein, it becomes highly doubtful, whether it can be challenged at all. Be that as it may, if the petitioner felt aggrieved by that order, he ought to have preferred an appeal, or review, before the concerned authorities. So far as the endorsement, dated 01.07.2010 is concerned, it came to be made in the light of a representation made by the petitioner, to re- appoint him. The 2nd respondent is not vested with such power, as long as the order of retirement of the petitioner, on medical grounds, is in existence. Even now, the petitioner can assail the order, dated 07.08.2009, before the competent forum, if he is so advised, and if there exist valid grounds in law. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies, vis-à-vis the order, dated 07.08.2009, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.10.11.2010. GJ