IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18165 of 2000 Between: Shankaraiah S/o Mallaiah H.No. 5-11-281, HB colony VenkateshNagar, Moulali, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad City Region, JBS Picket, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENT 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 or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not considering the petitioner for the post of Conductor on the ground that he has passed SSC in compartmentally is bad, arbitary, illegal and contrary to the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Recruitment Regulations and also contrary to the Notiﬁcation dt. 5/10/1999 and consequently direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Conductor Gr.II in the Recruitment of 1999-2000 in pursuance of the Notiﬁcation dt. 5/10/1999 of the respondent herein pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent : K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 18165 of 2000 ORDER : The petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman, has ﬁled this writ petition, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent in not considering his claim for appointment to the post of Conductor, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The respondent-Regional Manager has issued recruitment notiﬁcation on 05.10.1999, for ﬁlling up the anticipated vacancies of Drivers and Conductors in Hyderabad City Region as well as in Ranga Reddy Region. The petitioner has applied to the post of Conductor and he claimed reservation of 2% as applicable to the ex-servicemen. On the ground that his candidature was not considered though he was qualified, he has filed this writ petition. 3. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that selections are made on merit, and as per procedure, the candidates who passed the qualifying examination in one attempt, are considered in the ﬁrst instance, and the candidates who passed the qualifying examination compartmentally, are considered only if the candidates who passed the examination in one attempt, are not available. It is stated that asmuch as in the category of ex-servicemen, candidates who passed the qualifying examination in one attempt are available, they were selected and there is no backlog vacancy in the category of ex-servicemen. 4. It appears from the averments in the counter aﬃdavit that even to ﬁll up the quota among the ex- servicemen candidates, the authorities have short- listed the candidates by ﬁrst considering those who have passed the qualifying examination in one attempt, and subsequently, those who have passed compartmentally. As much as it is stated that the candidates who have passed the qualifying examination in one attempt are available, it cannot be said that the procedure adopted by the respondent is either illegal or arbitrary. Since the selections are made in the year 2000 and there is no vacancy available in ex-servicemen quota, and further, in view of the fact that such selected candidates in ex-servicemen quota are not before this Court, no direction can be given at this point of time, for appointment of petitioner. 5. Asmuch as it is stated that S.S.C. is the requisite qualiﬁcation for applying to the post of Conductor, I dispose of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to apply in response to any further notiﬁcation, and if any such application is ﬁled, the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with the regulations governing such appointments. 6. Subject to above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th October 2008 ajr