IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVAT TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY | TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1056AND 103^OF 2024 ^ WRIT APPEAL NO: 1056 OF 2024 ^ Writ Appeal under clause 1^of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04-10-2024 in W.P. No.14897 of 2016 on the file of the High Court. Between: N. Vandanam, S/o. N. George, E-505704, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Deputy Superintendent (P). DM Office/APSRTC, Addanki Depot, Bapatia District. ...PETITIONER AND The State Information Commissioner, A.P. Information Commission, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Appellate Authority under RTI Act, 2005/,The Executive Director, APSRTC, Pandit Jawahar Lai Nehru Bus Complex, Vijayawada, NTR District. The Public Information Officer under RTI Act,2005/, The Chief Manager (HRD), APSRTC, Pandit Jawahar Lai Nehru Bus Complex, Vijayawada, NTR District. 1. 2. 3. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B. SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1:— Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC WRIT APPEAL NO: 1032 OF 2024^ Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04-10-2024 in W.P. No. 38349 of 2018 on the file of the High Court.^ Between: N. Vandanam, SI. N. George, E-505704, Aged about 59 years, Occ Deputy Superintendent (P). DM Office/APSRTC Addanki Depot, Bapatia District. ...PETITIONER AND THE APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Pandit Jawahar Lai Nehru Bus Complex, Vijayawada, NTR District. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 the Order dated 04-10-2024 in W.P.No.38349 of 201 &r- Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B. SESIBUSHAN RAO ^ Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT f y IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-5 AT AMARAVATI APHC010577272024 & 6 [3483] f- WRIT APPEAL NO: 1056 of 2024 along with WA.No.1032 of 2024 WP.No.1056 of 2024 ...Appellant N Vandanam Vs. ...Respondents The State Information Commissioner and others ********** Mr. B Sesibushan Rao Advocate for Appellant Mr. Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC) Advocate for Respondents CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : 28'^ January, 2025 DATE PC : The present writ appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and order, dated 04.10.2024 passed in WP.No.14897 of 2016 & 38349 of 2018. The petitioner (appellant herein) claims that he responded to an advertisement notification issued in the year 1993 inter alia inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Traffic Supervisor Trainee. The select list, it is stated, was published in the year 2001 in which the name 2. 2 HCJ & RC, J WA 1056 & 1032 2024 of the petitioner did not figure. The petitioner before that had filed W.P.No.10585 of 2000 seeking consideration of the petitioner against the said post, which was disposed of by the learned single Judge on 20.08.2005 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. As the respondents had rejected the claim of the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 27.12.2005, he filed W.P.No.2178 of 2006 questioning the rejection order. Pending the said writ petition, another notification was issued by the respondents for filling up the post of Traffic Supervisor Trainee; assailing the same, the petitioner filed WP.No.1435 of 2009. Both the said writ petitions were decided by way of a common order, dated 04.03.2009, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was accordingly considered but rejected by the official respondents vide their order, dated 11.01.2013. The basis of the rejection of the petitioner’s case was that since the name of the petitioner did not figure in the final select list, he could not have been considered for selection and appointment against the post of Traffic Supervisor(Trainee). Admittedly, the petitioner did not question the order of rejection, dated 11.01.2013, thereafter and filed a separate petition questioning the refusal of the official respondents in providing the required information pertaining to the conduct of the selection process. 3. r 3 HCJ & RC, J WA 1056 & 1032_2024 The State Information Commission held that the information which was sought by the appellant herein and which was available with the authorities furnished and that the balance information could not be furnished due to was non-availability of record, which was 20 years old. It thus appears that the effort of the petitioner to prove that his name did figure in the select list, failed on account of non-availability of the relevant record. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner in WP.No.38349 of 2024 seeks of a Writ of Mandamus for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Traffic Supervisor pursuant to the notification issued in the year issuance 1993. 5. The learned single Judge, however, did not find any merit in the petition and dismissed the same by virtue of the judgment and order impugned on the ground primarily that the selection process had been conducted during the period 1993-96 through the IBPS and that since the records of selection were not available/destroyed and since the name of the petitioner was not found in the select list, no relief could be given to the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the right remedy for the petitioner ought to have been to challenge the order of rejection dated 11.01.2013 which 6. 7. V 4 y HCJ & RC, J WA_1056 & 1032_2024 passed pursuant to the directions issued by the learned single Judge in WP.Nos.2178 of 2006 & 1435 of 2009 which was not done by the petitioner. / was In any case, we find no reason to interfere with the comrnon judgment and order impugned in the present appeals as there is no basis for us to issue the direction as has been sought by the petitioner - appellant herein to order his consideration yet again in the absence of any supporting material which would show that the petitioner had made up the merit in the select list during the course of selection process which was initiated pursuant to the notification issued by the official respondents in the year 1993. 8. The Writ Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to 9. costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU deputy REGI^AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to Sri B. Sesibushan Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 2. OneCCtoSriSanisettyVenkateswarlu, SCForAPSRTC [OPUGl 3. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 1 1 FEB 2C?5 I Curreni S«cUon . ^ COMMON JUDGMENT 8^ 7* WA.Nos.1056 and 1032 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS