Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18502 (AP)

V.Srinivasa Rao, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,

WP/2218/2012 · 2025-07-03

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010256542012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2218/2012 Between: 1. V.SRINIVASA RAO, S/O NARASIMHAM, C/O V.SRINIVASA RAO, H.NO.4/172, RAM NAGAR, CHIMAKURTHY (PO)& (M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. P.MALLIKARJUNA RAO,, S/O SUBRAHMANYAM, C/O V.SRINIVASA RAO, H.NO.4/172, RAM NAGAR, CHIMAKURTHY (PO)& (M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. SK.MEERAVAL,, S/O MOHIDDIN, C/O V.SRINIVASA RAO, H.NO.4/172, RAM NAGAR, CHIMAKURTHY (PO)& (M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. L.RAMA KRISHNA RAO,, S/O ADINARAYANA, C/O V.SRINIVASA RAO, H.NO.4/172, RAM NAGAR, CHIMAKURTHY (PO)& (M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. G.YERRAIAH,, S/O BALAKOTAIAH, C/O V.SRINIVASA RAO, H.NO.4/172, RAM NAGAR, CHIMAKURTHY (PO)& (M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. B.RAMALINGA REDDY,, S/O VENKATESHWARLU, C/O V.SRINIVASA RAO, H.NO.4/172, RAM NAGAR, CHIMAKURTHY (PO)& (M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. SK.RAFI,, S/O ALLABAKSHI, C/O V.SRINIVASA RAO, H.NO.4/172, RAM NAGAR, CHIMAKURTHY (PO)& (M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 8. E.SREENIVASA RAO,, S/O ANJANEYULU, C/O V.SRINIVASA RAO, H.NO.4/172, RAM NAGAR, CHIMAKURTHY (PO)& (M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 9. D.V.SWAMY,, S/O ADESAH, C/O V.SRINIVASA RAO, H.NO.4/172, RAM NAGAR, CHIMAKURTHY (PO)& (M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, RTC 'X' ROAD, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 2 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, APSRTC, NELLORE ZONE, NELLORE 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER, APSRTC, NELLORE ZONE, NELLORE ...RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Notification for Recruitment to the Post of Junior Assistants (Finance), Junior Assistants (Personal) and Junior Assistants (Material) No.R2/684(22)/2011-HRD, dt.8-11-2011 as wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Method of Recruitment contemplated under the APSRTC Employees Recruitment Regulations 1966 and also amounts violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to follow the method of Recruitment Contemplated under the APSRTC Employees Recruitment Regulations 1966 and direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the extent of the in service quota as mentioned in the Regulations. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 2760 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioners for promotion to the post of Junior Assistants (Personal/Finance/Material) in the existing vacancies along with direct recruitees as per Method of Recruitment contemplated in APSRTC Recruitment Regulations, 1966, pending disposal of the Writ Petition IA NO: 2 OF 2012(WPMP 2761 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in prusuance of Notification No.R2/684(22)/2011-HRD, dt.8-11-2011 issued by the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VANAM VISHWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 2218 of 2012 ORDER: Despite the matter listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioners. It evinces that the petitioners have no interest in prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 04.07.2025 SPP 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No:2218 of 2012 Date : 04.07.2025 SPP