HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P. No.1294 of 1999 Dt.03-03-2010 B.Venkateswarlu … Petitioner Vs. The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Regional Manager, Ongole Region, Ongole. … Respondent O R D E R: The petitioner claims to be a displaced employee pursuant to the nationalization of routes from Pendalapadu to Kalavalla. This writ petition is filed, aggrieved by the proceedings No.L1/876(45)/97-RM(O) passed by the respondent dated 02-03- 1998 whereunder the petitioner’s claim for absorption in to the service of the APSRTC as a Conductor was rejected on various grounds including that the petitioner was not a genuine displaced worker and more over he was neither sponsored by the owner nor had he applied to the post of Conductor in response to the paper notification. Another ground on which the petitioner’s claim was rejected was that already four Conductors working in Vehicle No.AAC 28 were absorbed in the Corporation and, therefore, there was no further vacancy. The learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5186 of 1987, dated 25.8.1987, vehemently contended that as per the observations made by the Division Bench it was not open to the Corporation to reject the petitioner’s case on the ground that there were no vacancies. It is contended that the Corporation was bound to consider absorption of all the displaced persons in equivalent or suitable posts and no outsider shall be appointed unless all the displaced persons were absorbed. However, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents submitted that a ban was imposed on absorption of the displaced employees of private operators into the Corporation vide Circular Lr.No.PD-61/1998 dated 16.7.1998 and thereafter, no employee of the private operators has been absorbed in the service of the Corporation. The said fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus it is clear that there is no possibility of absorption of the displaced persons in the Corporation as on today. Hence it is not necessary at this stage to go into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. _______________ G.ROHINI, J 3rd March, 2010. PNV