HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2727 of 2001 Dated: 19-09-2008 Between: T.K.Prabhakar. … Petitioner And The A.P.S.R.T.C,. Rep by its Regional Manager, Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.T.S.RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent : SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: Nil C/15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 2727 of 2001 Between: T.K.Prabhakar S/o Chandraiah, Hanuman Street, Sultanabad, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND The A.P.S.R.T.C,. Rep by its Regional Manager, Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar. .....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 appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings No.E2/852(2)/99-RM:KR, DT: 27.1.2001 of the oﬃcer of the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Karimnagar, and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequentially direct the respondents re-include the petitioner's name in the selected Panel of Driver in Karimnagar Region. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.T.S.RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent : SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 2727 of 2001 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner, who was denied employment as a Driver in the respondent- Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’), on the ground of adverse antecedents and character. He questions the order dated 27th January 2001, passed by the Regional Manager in Proceedings No.E2/852(2)/99- RM:KR. 2. The facts are in a narrow compass : Pursuant to a notiﬁcation issued by the respondent-Corporation inviting applications for the post of Driver, the petitioner had applied for the same. In the selections made for appointment of Driver Grade-II, he was selected, subject to veriﬁcation of his educational qualiﬁcations/caste/ antecedents, etc., as contemplated under Regulation 7 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966. After selections, while making inquiry on the antecedents to assess the character of the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation has come across a case of conviction of the petitioner in a petty case in Crime No.27 of 1996, which was registered for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 290 and 323 of IPC on the ﬁle of Sulthanabad P.S. Then, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, asking him to show cause as to why his name be not deleted from the list of selected Drivers, in view of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case. In response to the same, petitioner has ﬁled his explanation on 20th December 2000, but however, through the impugned proceedings dated 27th January 2001, he was informed that his name was deleted from the panel of Drivers of Karimnagar region. 3. The impugned order dated 27th January 2001 passed in Proceedings No.E2/852(2)/99-RM:KR, is questioned in the writ petition mainly on the ground that the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner in proper perspective, and have mechanically ordered for deletion of his name from the list of selected Drivers. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the language envisaged under Regulation 7 of the Regulations, a single case registered against him, and the ﬁne amount paid by him, cannot come in the way of his appointment as a Driver in the Corporation. It is submitted that a false case has been registered against him for the alleged oﬀences punishable under Sections 290 and 323 of IPC, but however, when the charge sheet was ﬁled in Calendar Case No.75 of 1996, he pleaded guilty as a measure of plea-bargaining before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Sulthanabad. It is stated that he was ordered to pay a ﬁne of Rs.200/- for both the oﬀences together, and by virtue of such a single incident, it cannot be said that he has become ineligible to be appointed as a Driver. 4. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the respondent. In the counter aﬃdavit, while admitting that the petitioner was selected in the selections made by the Corporation, it is stated that in view of the crime registered in Crime No.27 of 1996 on the ﬁle of P.S.Sulthanabad and the consequential conviction in C.C.No.75 of 1996, the antecedents of the petitioner were found to be adverse, and as such, by giving an opportunity by way of show cause notice, ﬁnal orders were passed, deleting his name from the panel of Drivers. It is stated that the selection of petitioner to the post of Driver does not confer any right for being appointed as such. The conviction recorded against him in C.C.No.75 of 1996 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Sulthanabad, shows that the petitioner is a person with unsocial antecedents, and therefore, his name was deleted in accordance with the Regulations of the Corporation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T.S.Rayalu, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 6. The recruitment with regard to the posts of Drivers, etc., in the respondent-Corporation are governed by Statutory Regulations namely, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, framed under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Regulation 7, which is relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, reads as under : “7. Direct Recruitment : No person shall be eligible for appointment to any post in the service by direct recruitment unless he satisﬁes the Corporation : i) that he is of sound health, possesses active habits, and is free from any bodily defect or infirmity; ii) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service ; and iii) that he has completed the age of eighteen years.” 7. Having regard to the facts in the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected in the selections made by a Committee duly constituted by the Corporation. But however, after his selection, referring to a case registered against him in C.C.No.75 of 1996, a notice was issued to him, asking him to show cause as to why his name should not be deleted from the list of selected candidates. The case in Crime No.27 of 1995 was registered on the complaint ﬁled before the Police. In response to that, a Calendar Case was numbered in C.C.No.75 of 1996 before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Sulthanabad. The oﬀences alleged against the petitioner were for the alleged violation of provisions of Sections 290 and 323 of IPC. A copy of the docket order, dated 01.05.1996, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Sulthanabad, in C.C.No.75 of 1996, shows that when the petitioner was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and the substance of the accusation levelled against him was readover to him, he pleaded guilty, and based on such plea-bargaining, the learned Magistrate has ordered conviction and imposed a ﬁne of Rs.200/- as early as on 01.05.1996. But however, selections to the post of Drivers were held in the month of December 1999. Subsequently, inquiry was conducted with regard to the antecedents and character of the selected candidates. At that stage, having come to know about the case registered against the petitioner, his name was ordered to be deleted by the impugned order passed in the month of January 2001. 8. Having regard to the pleadings on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the only issue, which arise for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the name of the petitioner can be deleted from the list of selected Drivers on the ground that his character and antecedents came to adverse notice of the Corporation, in view of the conviction recorded against him in a single petty case in C.C.No.75 of 1996, which was about more than three years earlier to the selections. 9. Even according to the respondents, except the conviction recorded in C.C.No.75 of 1996 on plea- bargaining, there is no other incident to assess his character. The recruitment Regulations merely say that no person shall be eligible for appointment unless he satisﬁes the Corporation that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him to do such service. A conviction recorded in the case of this nature can be a piece of paper while assessing the character and antecedents of the petitioner. But however, mere conviction of a person and imposition of ﬁne in a single petty case on admission of guilt, by itself, cannot be a ground to disqualify such person from appointment. In the instant case, it appears from the pleadings on record that the respondent-authorities have not applied their mind while considering whether the adverse report, which came to light, will disentitle the petitioner from being appointed as a Driver. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was charged only with the oﬀences under Sections 290 and 323 of IPC, and after ﬁling charge sheet, when he pleaded guilty as a measure of plea-bargaining, he was convicted and imposed a fine of Rs.200/-. 10. Though there cannot be any hard and fast rule that can be followed while assessing the antecedents and character, but certain factors like the seriousness of the crime, the circumstances in which such crime is committed, and whether the conviction recorded by the criminal Court was on merits or otherwise, are also to be taken into consideration. A crime can be a pre- meditated one, or it can be committed on the spur of a moment. A crime can also be committed for a strong motive or for insigniﬁcant or no motive at all, and the crime may be gruesome or otherwise. It can be committed for monetary gain or no gain. The circumstances of the crime will be helpful in throwing a ﬂood of light on the personality of the criminal, so as to assess his overall antecedents and character. Further, even the time-lag after the conviction is yet another aspect to be kept in mind. In that view of the matter, in each and every case, the authorities have to apply their mind to the material on record, and come to an opinion whether a person is to be disqualiﬁed or not, having regard to the nature of charges levelled and the conviction recorded against him. But however, merely because of the conviction recorded in an isolated petty case, that too, upon the admission of guilt by the petitioner, it cannot be said that his antecedents and character are bad, disentitling him from holding the post of a Driver. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, it is clear that the respondents have not considered the seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case, and the circumstances in which the petitioner was convicted, and also the eﬀect of such conviction on the post which he has to hold after appointment. Therefore, I am of the view that it is a ﬁt case where the matter has to be reconsidered by the respondents. 12. Accordingly, the order under challenge, dated 27th January 2001, passed in proceedings No.E2/852(2)/99-RM:KR, is set aside. Matter is remitted to the respondent-Corporation, to consider it afresh and take appropriate decision for appointing the petitioner in the post of Driver Grade-II. However, it is made clear that the appointment of petitioner shall be subject to possessing valid driving license and it is also open for the respondents to conduct fresh test in driving. But however, his case should not be disqualiﬁed on the ground of over-age, as he has already appeared for selections in the year 1999, and has ﬁled this writ petition in 2001, which is pending before this Court for seven long years. 13. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th September 2008 N.B: L.R.Copy to be marked. (b/o) ajr