APHC010491842004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 19232/2004 Between: 1. S.K.RAJENDRAN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT., S/O S.KRISHNAIAH CHETTY, R/O THAVANAMPALLI (VILLAGE), BAJANAGUDI STREET, THAVANAMPALLI POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC CHITTOOR DIST, Chittoor- I Depot, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in terminating the petitioner's service w.e.f. 16-12- 2003 and refused to take the petitioner on duty inspite of the continuing the petitioner's juniors on the ground of misconduct without conducting the enquiry vide proceedings No.01/205(07)/04-CTR-I, dated 9-9-2004 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all monetary benefits including seniority, promotion, etc., and pass 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.19232 of 2004 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.19232 of 2004 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Petition No.19232 of 2004 ORDER: Heard Sri M.Naga Kishore, learned counsel, representing Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation. 2. Petitioner was engaged as Passenger Loader in the month of March, 2003, for the purpose of guiding and diverting passengers, who intended to travel by the buses belonging to the respondent Corporation. The Corporation, in order to enhance its efficiency and footfall in attracting a larger number of passengers, intended to engage certain retired employees and also persons who are more acquainted and connected with the locals in a particular area as Passenger Guides/ Passenger Loaders, which was sought to be undertaken on experimental basis. In the process, petitioner was also engaged as Passenger Loader. Thereafter, as petitioner was found to be not suitable for discharging aforesaid duties, and his performance was not to the satisfaction of the Corporation, his services came to be disengaged with effect from 16.12.2003. The aforesaid arrangement was stated to be on temporary basis and petitioner was paid a commission of Rs.1,000/- per month. Petitioner filed 4 CGR, J. W.P.No.19232 of 2004 W.P.No.2732 of 2004 challenging the action of Corporation in disengaging him from service, and also to consider the representation made by him on 29.05.2004, for reengagement. As petitioner has not pressed first part of relief and rather only confined to consideration of his representation, this Court disposed of the writ petition, by order, dated 05.08.2004, directing Corporation to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks. The Corporation, having considered the representation, ultimately, by impugned proceedings, dated 09.09.2004, rejected the same. In the rejection order, it was stated that the petitioner was found to be absconding from the point of duty frequently, he was inactive in motivating the passengers to opt Corporation buses, which was the essential purpose for which he was assigned such duty, therefore, the Corporation decided not to re-engage him. Challenging the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. The services of petitioner were initially availed in the month of March, 2003, to discharge the duties as Passenger Loader, in pursuance of a novel scheme devised by the Corporation to enhance its passenger capacity. Later, as petitioner was found to be not satisfactorily discharging said duties, his services came to be disengaged with effect from 16.12.2003. Such action came to be 5 CGR, J. W.P.No.19232 of 2004 assailed and was subject matter in W.P.No.2732 of 2004. In the said writ petition, petitioner has not pressed the challenge to the disengagement and rather confined only to consideration of representation. Inasmuch as now the Corporation has rejected the reengagement, the substantial issue since has already been given up, this Court does not find any illegality in such rejection order. Even otherwise, as the scheme of engaging Passenger Guide/Passenger Loader was introduced only as an experimental model, since the engagement of petitioner is not backed by any regular process of selection, no right vests on petitioner to seek continuation. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any in this case, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:06.11.2025. cs