1 ¥ y -S ^ • APHC010758842018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) f FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 36692 OF 2018 Between: Y.Lakshmi Devi, W/o B.Subbarayudu, Aged about 46 years, Occ. House wife, Resident of Mangalapalli H/o Suddamalla Village, Ramapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Central Bus Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Regional Manager, APS RTC, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The Depot Manager, APS RTC, Rayachoti, YSR Kadapa District. ...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 Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus holding the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as a Conductor in the 3rd respondent depot after reporting into duty before the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Conductor in the 3rd respondent depot i.e., Rayachoti, YSR Kadapa District. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 r Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Conductor in the 3rd respondent depot i.e., Rayachoti, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon’ble court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the RespondentsiSRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO, (SC FOR APSRTCKKAC) Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: APHC010768842018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 36692/2018 Between; 1.Y.LAKSHMI DEVI, W/0 B.SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, RESIDENT OF MANGALAPALLI H/0 SUDDAMALLA VILLAGE, RAMAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, CENTRAL BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APS RTC, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3.THE DEPOT MANAGER, APS RTC, RAYACHOTI, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 2.. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer; “ to issue Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus holding the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as a Conductor in the 3rd respondent depot after reporting into duty before the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Conductor in the 3rd respondent depot i.e., Rayachoti, YSR Kadapa District and pass...." Heard Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner 2. and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was 3. selected as a conductor on a contract basis in APSRTC in the year 2009. Thereafter, she was sent for training from 09.06.2014 to 30.06.2014. Learned counsel would further submit that the selected candidates were kept in the panel for want of vacancies. The petitioner, who could not get her turn to join as a conductor, submitted a report to the Corporation. There was no response from the Corporation. The petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kadapa, wherein notice was issued to the APSRTC. After hearing their version, the matter was closed, since the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot deal with service matters. Without causing any prejudice to her rights, the petition before the Lok Adalat was closed, giving liberty to her to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is qualified and was selected for the post of 3 conductor. She underwent training but was deprived of her employment. Learned counsel would further submit that the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as a conductor after she reported for duty in the year 2009 is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a direction may be given to the respondents to allow the petitioner to join as a conductor. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-corporation would submit that the petitioner was selected for the post of conductor on a contract basis by the Departmental Selection Committee vide E1/684(1)/2009/RM-K DP dated 09.06.2009. For ready reference, paragraph Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are extracted below from the counter: “...3. It is submitted that the petitioner was selected for the post of conductor on a contract basis by the Departmental Selection Committee vide proceedings No. E1/684(1)/2009/RM-KDP, dt. 09.06.2009, along with her batchmates under community roster No. 845. She was found medically fit vide MC No. 120428, and she was directed to undergo theoretical training from 01.06.2014 at ZSTC/KRNL vide letter No. E1/812(1)/14-RM-KDP, dt. 31.05.2014. After completion of theoretical training, she underwent practical training at Rayachoty depot from 09.06.2014 to 30.06.14. Thereafter, she was kept under panel for posting, for want of vacancy. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was directed to undergo theoretical training from 01.06.2014 at ZSTC/KRNL vide letter No. E1/812(1)/14-RM- KDP, dt. 31.05.2014, and after completion of theoretical training, she underwent practical training at Rayachoty depot from 09.06.2014 to 30.06.2014. 5. It is submitted that due to curtailment of schedules, the selected candidates were kept in the panel for want of vacancies. It is submitted that a paper notification was issued calling the candidates who were selected and trained for the post of conductor to report to the Regional Office, Kadapa, for re-engagement. The names of 77 candidates who were selected and disengaged for want of vacancies and did not report in response to the notification were deleted from the selection list. The name of the petitioner, who is also one among those candidates and did not turn up, was also deleted from the selection list as per the rules and regulations....” 4 Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the fact remains that the petitioner was selected for the post 5. of conductor on a contract basis on 09.06.2014. She was also called to attend training from 09.06.2014 to 30.06.2014. She successfully completed her training, according to the respondent-Corporation. They issued a paper notification calling the candidates who were selected and trained for the post of conductor to report for re-engagement. Out of the selected people who underwent training, 77 candidates were disengaged for want of vacancies and, having not reported in response to the notification, their names were deleted from the selection list. 6. Needless to say, when the paper notification was issued calling the candidates to join duty, the petitioner could not join due to lack of knowledge. It is not uncommon to say that when any notification is issued in the paper, not all people from all corners happen to see that paper. The respondent- Corporation ought to have served a copy of the notification calling the individual through RPAD or a special messenger. They cannot treat the paper notification as universal notice. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner, being a selected candidate and having undergone training, was deprived of her employment due to lack of information at the relevant point of time. In that view, it is apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner and permit her to join duty according to the governing 5 rules and law, by giving notional and monetary benefits from the date of her joining. 8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FICER SECT To, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 1. The Managing Director Bus Bhavan Central Bus Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. APS RTC, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 2. The Regional Manager 3. The Depot Manager, APS RTC, Rayachoti, YSR Kadapa District. 4. One CC to SRI. D KODANDARAMI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] RAMA RAO, (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 5. One CC to SRI. ARAVALA Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED: 11/07/2025 ^2 nUL 2025 itSectiottxi/ ORDER WP NO. 36692 OF 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS