APHC010692132011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 2925/2011 Between: 1. MR. P. KISHORE, S/O. LAKSHMI NARAYANA SHRAMIK [OUTSOURCING] R/O. CHINNAMACHANURU VILLAGE & POST, MARRIPADU MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR BUS BHAVAN, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NELLORE REGION, NELLORE. ...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 to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not giving weightage marks, to the aspirants of 'Shramik' post, in Notification dt. 01-11- 2010, for relevant experience as 'Shramiks' [outsourcing] in respondent corporation as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair labour practice, opposed to 'doctrine of legitimate experience' besides violative of Art. 14, 16, 21 & 23 of the Constitution of India, Sec. 10 & 31 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to give 2 weightage marks to the relevant experience to the petitioner at the time of considering his case for recruitment of 'Shramik'. IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 3625 OF 2011 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 2nd respondent to subject the petitioner for selection process in pursuance of Notification dt. 01-11-2010 on par with other selected candidates duly giving weightage marks for relevant experience, in the respondent corporation. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: 3 Order:- There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to not granting weightage marks to the petitioner for the post of Shramik. A notification dated 01.11.2010 was issued by the respondent authority, and the petitioner claims to have adequate experience, which would entitle the petitioner for grant of weightage marks. 3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged as an apprentice and subsequently was also engaged on an outsourcing basis as a Shramik in the year 2006. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities ought to have given weightage for the service of the petitioner on an outsourcing basis. The challenge to the notification dated 01.11.2010 cannot be considered by this Court now. This Court, in several similar matters, has dismissed the writ petitions. 4. Considering the submission of the respondent authorities that the recruitment in pursuance of the notification has been completed and that no vacancies are available for consideration. 5. On these considerations, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 27.01.2026 PNS