APHC010000502021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos: 45/2021 & 40261/2022 WRIT PETITION No.45/2021: Between: K.c. Ganga Devi, ...PETITIONER AND The A P S R T C and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO The Court made the following Common Order: The Writ Petition No.45 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not engaging the petitioner on par with her colleagues, in spite of the vacancies available and rejecting her case vide Proc No.LC/876 (29)-2019-RM-A, DT 06-04- 2020 as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, against to the principles of natural justice, contrary to the circular instructions, and violative 2 of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to extend all the benefits on par with the colleagues of the petitioner including regularization of the services of the petitioner….” The Writ Petition No.40261 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not engaging the petitioner on par with her colleagues, in spite of the vacancies available as high handed and arbitrary action, Discrimination, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, against to the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to extend all the benefits on par with the colleagues of the petitioner including regularization of the services of the petitioner….” 2. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposal by way of this common order. 3. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore, W.P.No.45 of 2021 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as Conductor on contract basis vide Roster No.1001, in pursuance of the notification in the month of April, 2009 and after completion of Training, she was engaged on contract basis on different spells from 2010 onwards. In the month of November, 2019, the colleagues of the petitioner were called for 3 engagement on contract basis vide proc dated 04.12.2019, but the petitioner was not called for. When the petitioner enquired in the office of 2nd respondent, she was orally informed that there are no vacancies and she will be called whenever vacancies are available. On enquiry, she came to know that her colleagues, who are juniors to her were engaged, but the case of the petitioner was denied. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner along with her colleagues filed representation on 16.12.2019 requesting to engage the petitioner on par with her juniors, but there is no response till date. Further, the batch mate of the petitioner, who was also disengaged without following due process of law, approached this Court and filed W.P.No.6630 of 2012 and the same was disposed on 07.06.2013 and he was reinstated and continuing, but even though the petitioner was on the rolls, the respondents have not considered her case. As the representation of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2010 of 2020 and the same was disposed on 21.01.2020, directing the 2nd respondent to consider her representation. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.LC/876(29)/2019- RM-K, dated 06.04.2020 stated that the petitioner herein was selected to the post of Contract Conductor in the recruitment conducted in the year 2000. Later, as she has not reported for duty since beginning, her name was deleted from panel w.e.f. 01.02.2017 vide Office Order No.E1/255(1)/2016-RM-K, 4 dated 01.02.2017. Hence, it is not possible to appoint her to the post of conductor. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The pleadings which are cited by the petitioner in W.P.No.45 of 2021, the same are adopted by the other petitioners in W.P.No.40261 of 2022. 6. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. 7. The respondents filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.45 of 2021 denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner has applied for the post of conductor on contract basis in the year 2009 and selected through roster No.1001 and after selection, she underwent for training for the post of conductor on contract basis and kept under panel. It is further stated that, a batch of conductors who were under panel including roster No.1001, were informed through leading daily news papers so many times viz., 16.04.2015 and 19.04.2015 in ANDHRA JYOTHI, 17.05.2015 in ANDHRA JYOTHI, EENADU and SAAKSHI, 04.04.2016, 07.04.2016, 23.04.2016, 29.04.2016, 10.05.2016 and finally it was published on 07.08.2016 openly, through EENADU daily news paper stating that the panel contract conductors from roster Nos.768 to 1231 were advised to attend the RM’s Office, Kadapa on 09.08.2016 to engage them, duly incorporating a condition stating that their names will be deleted from the panel if they failed to attend at Regional Manager’s Office. But the petitioner and others were failed 5 to attend before Regional Manager’s office, hence their names were deleted from the panel vide office order No.E1/255(1)/2016-RM-K, dated 01.02.2017. It is further stated that, in the month of November, 2019, a batch of E.65 disengaged contract conductors whose names were still on live and already listed out and sent to Corporate Office for approval for re-engagement as when required, since they were disengaged on 31.12.2016 due to curtailment of schedules, etc., only are called for on 04.12.2019 for re-engagement on receipt of the approval from corporate office. The petitioner filed W.P.No.2010 of 2020 and this Court has disposed the same, giving liberty to the petitioner to file her representation before the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents have perused the entire case and issued proceedings No.LC/876(29)/2019-RM-K, dated 06.04.2020, in compliance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.2010 of 2020, stating that as the petitioner failed to report for duties since beginning, her name was deleted from panel and it is not possible to appoint her to the post of conductor. 8. The respondents 2 to 4 filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.40261 of 2022 denying the allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that, as the petitioners failed to report for duty as and when called for on par with their colleagues, their names were ignored for re-engagement from the list of panel since is just and proper and first come first served principle. So there is no injustice in calling for engagement and utilization of their services 6 as per need and season of the travelling public and no representations were entertained on this matter. It is further contended that, as per the docket order of this Court dated 14.12.2022, a speaking order vide No.LC/876(2)/2023- DPTO-K, dated 06.01.2023 issued to the petitioners through Registered Post stating that “the representations submitted by the petitioners in the month of December 2019, have not been considered for re-engagement of their services as contract conductors on par with their colleagues batch of 2009, since they were not interested to discharge their duties and serve to the public as and when need corporation during their disengagement of period”. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Heard Mr.S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.Aravala Rama Rao and Mr.Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 10. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petitions, submits that, the petitioners were made as scape goats by the officials of the respondents corporation, though they were selected being meritorious and with a fond hope to get regularized, the petitioners used the work as and when the DMs call them and now after a decade also not, the respondents are not regularizing the services of the petitioners. He further submits that, as the petitioners were made to turn around to the offices of the respondents, they were not in a position to search 7 for another job and if they join in any other job, they will be terminated and their chances of regularization of their services in the corporation will be deprived of. He further submits that there are vacancies and the petitioners are need in employment and they are ready to do Conductor duties in any Depot, but inspite of her repeated requests, the respondents are not considering their case. He further submits that the 2nd respondent states that the names of the petitioners were deleted from the panel vide proceedings dated 01.02.2017, but till date the same were not served on the petitioners. He further submits that the 2nd respondent without providing any reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, deleted the names of the petitioners from the panel, which is against to the principles of natural justice and as such, the proceedings vide No.LC/876(29)-2019-RM-K, dated 06.04.2020 and No.LC/876(2)/2023-DPTO-K, dated 06.01.2023 are liable to be set aside. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 11. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavits, submits that, since the names of the petitioners were not there in the panel, they were not called for re-engagement along with their batch mates. The representation of the petitioners were also not valid and too late since their names were already deleted from the panel vide proceedings dated 01.02.2017 duly following the procedure. Hence, the 8 respondents have not violated the principles of natural justice. He further submits that a batch of E.77, contract conductors who were under panel were deleted vide Office Order No.E1/255(1)/2016-RM-K, dated 01.02.2017 and it is not possible to serve individually, as per the publication of notification openly, it is deemed to have been served to all including the petitioners. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays to dismiss the writ petitions. 12. Perused the record. 13. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the petitioners were engaged on a contract basis in 2009 and later disengaged due to the slack season. Subsequently, the respondents issued newspaper publications stating that the disengaged conductors have to report at Regional Manager’s Office. However the petitioners did not appear, as they were not served with any notice. As a result, the respondents removed the names of the petitioners from the panel list. Their colleagues, who responded to the newspaper publications, were engaged in 2015 and 2016, given priority and their services were utilized again in 2019. Therefore, the action taken by the respondents is legal and in accordance with the APSRTC Regulations. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, as the names of the petitioners were deleted from the panel list 9 vide office order No.E1/255(1)/2016-RM-K, dated 01.02.2017, it is not possible to consider the case of the petitioners to appoint them to the post of conductor. Therefore, this Court found no merit in the writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 07.02.2025 BMS