IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1054 OF 2020 Between: Kamepalli Raghava, S/o. Sitharamaiah, Aged 46 years, Mangamuru Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The Regional Manager, Guntut Region, Guntur District. Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur District. The Regional Manager, Prakasam Region, Ongole, Prakasam District. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in L1/876/(35)/2019-RM(G) dt. 30.11.2019 passed by the 3^^ respondent, thereby rejecting the petitioner's representation submitted for taking him into duties as a conductor, as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of settled > principles of service jurisprudence and offends Articles 14 and 21 of •Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to take him into service as conductor on par with similarly situated persons of his batch of conductors. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 suspend the operation of Proceedings in L1/876/(35)/2019-RM(G) dt. 30.11.2019 and consequently direct the respondents to take the petitioner in to service as conductor, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER / /■ |. 1 APHC010015972020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1054/2020 Between: ...PETITIONER Kamepalli Raghava AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief; writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS “....to issue a declaring the proceedings in L1/876/35/2019RMG dt 30.11.2019 passed by the 3 respondent thereby rejecting the petitioners representation submitted for taking him into duties as a conductor as illegal irregular irrational and violative of settled principles of service jurisprudence and offends articles 14 and of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to take him into service as conductor par with similarly situated persons of his batch of conductors...” 21 on 2 M ■ 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected for the post of conductor in the services of respondents through the recruitment process conducted by the respondents in the year 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as conductor on contract basis as ID No. 726880 in the 2nd respondent's corporation and he joined in the service in Guntur Region and worked at various places such as Kanigiri, Narasaraopet and Chilakaluripet wherever the petitioner was posted. The petitioner continued in service till 2003 and rendered his service without any adverse remarks. But surprisingly the petitioner was not allowed to duties till 2003. Though several representations were made by the petitioner to engage him into service, the respondents' corporation did not consider his request. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15959 of 2019 before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation and pass orders in accordance with law. On 25.10.219 the General Secretary addressed a letter to the 4**^ respondent to reinstate the petitioner into the services as a conductor. Without considering request made by the General Secretary, the 3rd respondent passed Impugned Order dated 30.11.2019 thereby not allowing the petitioner as a casual conductor, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.2 to 6. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, stated that. the Petitioner was initially appointed as Casual Conductor at Guntur Region and directed to Prakasam Region for temporary utilization of his services at 3 the needy depots of Prakasam Region. During the process of disengagement of Conductors in view of curtailment of slack season of schedules, the petitioner was dis-engaged from services w.e.f. 01.09.2000. Subsequently, the petitioners' batch mates were re-engaged, performed their duties and were regularized. But, the petitioner neither approached Regional Manager's Office, Guntur nor at concerned Depot where he was lastly worked i.e. at Chilakaluripet Depot. It is stated that after a gap of 16 years the petitioner herein filed a representation to consider his case for reinstatement and filed a W.P No. 15959/2019 before this Hon'ble High Court and this Court vide order dated 16.10.2019 directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Regional Manager, Guntur requesting to take him for duties in view of the orders of the It is stated that the proceedings Hon'ble Labour Court, Guntur. L1/876/(35)/2019- RM(G) were issued duly informing that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and it is revealed that the petitioner is not at all interested towards his job, since he has not approached either at the Regional Manager's Office, Guntur or at Depot Manager's Office, Chilakaluripet Depot and at this juncture there is no possibility to re-engage the petitioner into service as Casual Conductor. 4. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 to 6. While denying the contentions made in the 4 ’<5 counter, it is stated that, the petitioner was dis-engaged from services w.e.f. 01.09.2000 and he continued in service from the year 1999 till 2003 and rendered his service as Conductor in the services of the 1®* respondent corporation. It is not true that the petitioner neither approached Regional Manager's Office, Guntur nor at concerned Depot where he was lastly worked i.e., at Chilakaluripet Depot. It is also denied the allegation that the petitioner submitted representation after a gap of 16 years for considering reinstatement St in the service as Conductor. Infact, he made several requests to the 1 respondent's corporation including his representation dated 03.10.2019, requesting to engage him into service. But, the respondents' corporation did not consider his request, in spite of several representations made by the petitioner to that effect. After disposal of W.P.No.15959 of 2019 vide Order dated 16.10.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner submitted one more representation on 24.10.2019 to the respondents with the same request but instead of reinstating him into the service as Conductor, the 3’’^ respondent passed the impugned Order dated 30.11.2019, thereby rejecting his representation for reinstatement of his services as Conductor. It is also denied the allegation that the petitioner is not at all interested towards his job and duties and if he was really interested and needed job, he would have approached earlier Depot Manager's office, Chilakaluripet or the Regional Manager's Office, Guntur. In fact, the petitioner was disengaged from duties without any lapse on his part, but as a policy of respondents. Respondents 5 again reengaged his batch-mate conductors, but discriminated the petitioner without informing about the reinstatement of earlier conductors. 5. Heard Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, in earlier WP No. 15959 of 2019 filed by the petitioner, this Court has directed the respondents to pass orders on the representation dated 3.10.2019 of the petitioner. He further submits that In view of the above order of this Court, the General Secretary addressed a letter to the 4'^ respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as a but without considering the request made by the General conductor. Secretary, the 3’’^ respondent issued the impugned proceedings which is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel further submits that, if the respondents do not allow the petitioner to duties as casual conductor he would suffer irreparable loss, hardship due to the huge financial crisis and he would suffer deprivation of livelihood. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned order. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner had w 6 approached this Hon’ble Court after a lapse of 16 years after discharge from his service and hence the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis with ID No.726880 in the 2"^^ respondent’s corporation and continued in service till 2003. As stated by respondents counsel that, during the process of disengagement of Conductors in view of curtailment of slack season of schedules, the petitioner was disengaged from services w.e.f. 01.09.2000. 9. On a perusal of the material, it is observed that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Casual Conductor at Guntur Region and directed to Prakasam Region for temporary utilization of his services at the needy depots of Prakasam Region. During the process of disengagement of Conductors in view of curtailment of slack season of schedules, the petitioner was dis engaged from services w.e.f. 01.09.2000. It is further observed that, the petitioners' batch mates were re-engaged, performed their duties and were regularized. But, the petitioner neither approached Regional Manager's Office, Guntur nor at concerned Depot where he was lastly worked i.e. at Chilakaluripet Depot. Now, it is observed that after a long gap i.e, after 16 the petitioner has filed a representation to consider his case for reinstatement, which is not tenable. years. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this'Court is of the considered view that, if at all any existing vacancy is there, the 7 petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to the respondents concerned for appointment to the Post of Conductor. On such receipt of representation, the respondents concerned are directed to conduct medical/ physical test whether the petitioner is fit for the said post or not, and pass appropriate orders accordingly, in accordance with law, thereafter. 11. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous shall be no order as to costs. applications shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Regional Manager, Guntut Region, Guntur District. 4. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur District. 5. The Regional Manager, Prakasam Region, Ongole, Prakasam District. 6. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Kanigiri. Prakasam District. 7. One CC to Sri M.Pitchaiah, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, SC for APSRTC.[OPUC] 9. Three CD Copies. gi ▼ HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1054 of 2020 w X 10 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section o\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS