IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 381 of 2001 Between: Ruttala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Appala Naidu, R/o. Narsipatnam, Visakhpatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep.by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep.by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anakapalli Depot, Anakapalli, Visakhpatnam District. .....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 appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not issuing the appointment orders to petitioner appointing him as Conductor/Cleaner in the services of APSRTC, pursuant to the selection Process held on 16-4-1994, under 30% quota of children of Retired/In- service Employees of APSRTC, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents herein to appoint the Petitioner herein as Conductor or Cleaner in any of the existing vacancies in APSRTC in Visakhapatnam Rural Division, forthwith; and pass such other or further orders as are necessary. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.CHALLARI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.381 of 2001 ORAL ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for his appointment to the post of Conductor/Cleaner in the service of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”) in the quota reserved for the children of the retired/inservice employees of the Corporation. 2. Similar issue has been considered in SHAIK AHMED ALI SHAH vs. DIVL.MANAGER, APSRTC[1], wherein a Division Bench of this Court has declared that no such quota can be implemented and held that hereditary appointment has no place in public employment. As such, no mandamus can be issued to enforce the benefit under the circular which itself is unconstitutional. 3. In view of the judgment referred to above, no direction can be given to the Corporation for appointment of the petitioner in the quota reserved for the children of the retired/inservice employees of the Corporation. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 27-11-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.381 of 2001 27-11-2008 Msr [1] 1996 (3) ALT 994 (D.B.)