THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 1061 of 2001 O R D E R: Heard Ms. B. Malleswari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. This Writ Petition has been instituted seeking directions to the respondent- Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’) to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment as an Attender, as her husband died while serving the respondent-Corporation as a Helper. The case of the writ petitioner is that her husband died on 08.04.1992 in harness. The writ petitioner is a widow and four minor children have been left behind to survive. She submitted a representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as she needs minimum assistance and succor. She moved this Court by instituting Writ Petition No. 578 of 1995. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 17.10.1995, the writ petitioner has been appointed, through the order, dated 22.11.1995, of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa, as a Sweeper in the pay scale of 1405- 2715/- with all usual allowances admissible thereto. She has been posted as such to the APSRTC Depot at Proddutur. Accordingly, she joined the service of the respondent-Corporation on 30.11.1995 and has been working as such. At the time of her appointment, the writ petitioner studied up to V class. Hence, she could be appointed only as a Sweeper. However, the writ petitioner appears to have improved her academic qualification by privately studying for SSC and she passed the SSC Examination in March 1998. Thus, she is now eligible and qualified to be appointed as an Attender. The case of the writ petitioner is that one Smt. P. Chudamani, who was appointed initially as a Sweeper under the ‘bread winner scheme’, has subsequently been re-categorized as an Attender in the same scale of pay of Rs.1405-2715/-, through an order passed on 25.10.1996 by the same Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa. The writ petitioner solicited her case also to be considered for such re-categorization as an Attender. The Corporation has resisted it for two reasons; 1) at the time when the writ petitioner came to be appointed, she passed V standard, whereas for being appointed as an Attender, the minimum qualification required, as per the recruitment rules of the Corporation, is pass in VII standard; 2) in the case of Smt. P. Chudamani, W/o late Narayana Swamy, she passed X class at the time when she was appointed as a Sweeper. Therefore, she approached this Court by instituting Writ Petition No. 4915 of 1995 and pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 07.06.1996, her case was considered for re- categorization as an Attender. Hence, the Corporation contends that the case of the writ petitioner stands entirely on a different footing. While it is true that the writ petitioner may not be qualified to be appointed as an Attender at the time when she was appointed as a Sweeper on 22.11.1995, but the fact remains that she has appeared for the SSC examination and passed the same in March 1998. Perhaps, it would be appropriate to consider her case for re- categorization as an Attender as and when next such posts are sought to be filled in. It is all the more important to notice that the scale of pay of an Attender and Sweeper appear to be the same, but however, the nature of duties to be performed by Sweeper and Attender are greatly different. Though the Corporation may have been justified in appointing the writ petitioner to begin with as a Sweeper, but however, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the writ petitioner for re-categorization as an Attender, taking into account and consideration the fact that she has since passed the SSC examination conducted by the State Board of Secondary Education in March 1998. If the post of Sweeper and Attender continue to carry the same scale of pay, it may, perhaps, be appropriate for the Corporation to take up the case of the writ petitioner for such re-categorization as and when the posts of Attender are next sought to be filled in. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 11th November 2009 ksld