APHC010468022005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15030/2005 Between: 1. B. SOMANNADORA, TUNI, S/O. VENKATARAMANA, EX-CLEANER, RESIDING AT MOTUKURUVARI STREET, OPP : RAILWAY STATION, TUNI - 533 401 (E.G. DIST). ...PETITIONER AND 1. A P S R T C VIZIANAGARAM 3 OTHERS, VIZIANAGARAM. 2. A P S R T C REPRESENTED BY, ITS REGIONAL MANGER, RAJAHUMDRY 3. A P S R T C REPRESENTED BY, ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIJAYAWADA & VIZIANAGARAM ZONES) RAJAHMUNDRY 4. TENE GANGARAO FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, PROPRIETOR SRI SATYANARAYANA BUS SERVICE, G.N.T. ROAD, TUNI - 533 401 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue an Order, Direction or a Writ one in the nature of 'MANDAMUS' declaring the proceedings LC/87695)/99.RM.RJY, dt. 27-5- 2005 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and by setting aside the same consequently direct the respondent 1 to 3 to appoint us in any suitable post lying in the office of the respondents 1 & 2, under the quota of displaced person under the relevant circulars issued by the respondents 1 & 2 from time 2 to time and pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and necessary in the circumstances of the case IA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 19111 OF 2005 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 direct the 1 & 2 respondents to re-consider our cases for regular absorption in their organization to any suitable post, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP 4227 OF 2009 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 fix an early date for hearing of the WP No. 15030/2005, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A V S LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Challenging the proceedings vide LC/876(5)/99.RM.RJY dated 27.05.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Appa Rao, learned counsel representing Smt A.V.S.Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the petitioner was appointed as cleaner on 11.04.1989 and worked with the 4th respondent in Bus Service APS 603 on the route of Tuni to Kotanandur. While so, the Regional Transport Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District, informed the 4th respondent that the said route was nationalized. Thereafter, the 4th respondent made representations to the authorities to absorb the employees worked under him into their organizations. As no response has been received from the authorities, petitioner along with others filed W.P.No.6893 of 1999 which was disposed of by order dated 17.01.2005 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein for appointment in any suitable post in their office. Thereafter, petitioner made representation to the respondents requesting for compliance of the order dated 17.01.2005. Petitioner was called for interview vide call letter dated 09.05.2005 and was interviewed on 21.05.2005. Later, proceedings dated 27.05.2005 were issued to the petitioner holding that during the course of interview conducted by the selection committee, the petitioner has failed to submit any recorded evidence that he worked on private bus bearing No.APS603 which plied on the route Tuni to Kotananduru. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that nevertheless in the absence of abundant material, passing the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner is illegal and if such order subsists it affects the rights of the petitioner, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that this writ petition is of the year 2005 and at this length of time, the authorities cannot consider the request of the petitioner as he is aged about 55 years by now. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. The writ petition is of the year 2005 and as on the date of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner is 35 years old. Now, he is 55 years old and even if the writ petition is allowed, he cannot be taken into service by virtue of afflux of time. There is some force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel. In that view of the matter, the cause in the writ petition does not survive and has become infructuous. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if at all the petitioner has any grievance against the respondents, he can approach competent authority for redressal of any grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 11th September, 2025 RKS