APHC010220112023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 11827/2023 Between: 1. B V RAMA DEVI, E-943203, APSRTC CONDUCTOR, D/O.VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, P./O. KONDAPURAM, KADAPA DISTRICT, AP. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, R AND B DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAWATHI, AP. 2. THE A P S R T C, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, A.P.S.R.T.C., KADAPA ZONE, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT, AP. 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., KADAPA REGION, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. P.P. ...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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not engaging the petitioner on par with her colleagues, in spite of the vacancies available as high handed and arbitrary action, Discrimination, against to the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the 2 Constitution of India, contrary to circular instructions and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to extend all the benefits on par with the colleagues of the petitioner including regularization of the services of the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 respondents herein to continue the Petitioner in duties forthwith, pending disposal of the W.P, and pass IA 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 grant leave to file the counter affidavit in WP No. 11827 of 2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not engaging the petitioner on par with her colleagues in spite of the vacancies available as high handed and arbitrary action Discrimination against to the principles of natural justice arbitrary and violative of Article 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India contrary to circular instructions and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to extend all the benefits on par with the colleagues of the petitioner including regularization of the services of the petitioner and pass” 2. Brief facts of the case, as set out by the petitioner, are that, she was selected as a Contract Conductor in pursuance of the notification issued in the month of April, 2009. Her selection was based on her merit in SSC by duly constituted Selection Committee of the respondent-Corporation. After completion of her training, she was engaged on contract basis on different spells from 2010 onwards, particularly in peak seasons and during slack seasons, the respondents used to disengage her and used to pay daily wages during her work. She continued to work till 30.12.2016. Due to the ill-health of her daughter and husband, she could not attend her duties and she had also submitted a letter dated 30.12.2016 informing the above-stated reasons. Thereafter, after recovery of her family members from ill-health, she submitted a requisition to the respondent-Corporation on 03.12.2019 seeking her re-engagement as a Contract Conductor. As the respondents failed to consider her case, she filed the present Writ Petition. 4 3. Respondents have filed counter stating that it is an admitted fact that she worked as a Contract Conductor during peak seasons pursuant to her selection in the year 2010. She continued to work till 30.12.2016 at Tadipatri Depot. It is also not disputed by the respondents that she submitted a letter on 30.12.2016 indicating that, due to her daughter’s ill-health and her husband’s heart surgery, she could not attend duties and she made a representation dated 03.12.2019 for her re-engagement. The objection raised by the respondents is that, as she herself failed to attend duties, her name was removed from the rolls/list of Contract Conductors, as such, she is not entitled for consideration for re-engagement. 4. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the respondents. 5. As seen from the counter-affidavit as well as the pleadings in the Writ Petition, there is no dispute regarding her engagement as a Contract Conductor and the fact that she continued up to 31.12.2016 and also her representation for re-engagement dated 03.12.2019. Petitioner had submitted representation in the year 2019 for her re-engagement after recovery of her family members from ill-health. The sole ground that was taken by the respondents for non-consideration of her case is that she was delisted as a Contract Conductor as she failed to attend duties between 31.12.2016 to 03.12.2019. 5 6. Even when a specific query was posed by the Court under which regulation such list has been prepared, it appears there is no procedure adopted. As the petitioner has genuine cause, she could not attend duties during particular period in view of ill-health of family members. Petitioner is having experience from 2010 to 2016, about 6 years and her services will be beneficial to the Corporation, if her name is included in the list of Contract Conductors and she is provided with the duties in peak seasons, as was being done in the earlier occasion from 2010 to 2016. 7. The petitioner had genuinely submitted her request stating that, due to ill-health of her daughter and her husband, she could not attend her duties. Even from the counter, it appears that the petitioner had submitted a letter seeking permission for not attending the duties, as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the counter. Thus, as seen from the record, due to ill-health of her daughter and her husband, petitioner could not attend. There is no rule barring from re-engagement of the petitioner as a Contract Conductor and her services can be utilized by the Corporation. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of considered view that petitioner has already having experience of six years as a Contract Conductor. However, she could not attend duties for the period from 2016 to 2019 due to ill-health of her daughter and her husband. In view of the same, it would suffice if the respondent-Corporation is directed to re-engage her by duly including her name in the list of Contract Conductors, which would meet the ends of justice. 6 9. Accordingly, the respondent-Corporation is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the list of Contract Conductors and provide the duties during peak seasons, which are being provided in respect of other such conductors. However, it is made clear that petitioner cannot claim any benefit basing on this direction for her re-engagement for the period that she did not attend her duties. The respondent-Corporation shall include the name of the petitioner in the list of Contract Conductors within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and provide her duties as per the procedure that is being followed in respect of other similarly placed Contract Conductors. 10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date : 08-09-2026 BMS