Dismissed

P.Amala v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Apr 2023WP/2554/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-appointment of a selected candidate due to inaction by the Kerala Transport Authority. The court declined to decide on merits, directing the authority to consider representations made in 2013 and 2014 if received.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs

P.Amala Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2554 OF 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…to issue an appropriate writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Contract Conductor though the petitioner is selected by the duly constituted selection committee in accordance with APSRTC Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, though there were clear vacancies during the period of panel and the candidates placed subsequent to the petitioner in the select list dated 24.09.2009 were appointed as contract conductors, is unjust, arbitrary, contrary to APSRTC Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14, Article 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Contract Conductor in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders…”

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of a notification No.E2/4(2)2008-NZ, dated 04.07.2009, published by the 2^nd respondent in daily news papers calling for applications for appointment to the posts of Contract Conductors in A.P.S.R.T.C. Chittoor Region, on a monthly salary of Rs.4,397/-. The petitioner having possessing the requisite qualifications, belonging to

¶7

Scheduled Caste community, applied for the said post and thereafter, she was further selected by the Selection Committee constituted as per APSRTC Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966. Thereafter, the call letter numbers of the selected candidates were published in the News Paper on 25.04.2009. The petitioner’s call letter number was at serial no.247, which was also included in the list of selected candidates.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioner is that, initially, the first batch of 120 selected candidates were called for medical test on 07.10.2009 by way of publishing their call letter numbers in the daily news papers. But, as the petitioner’s call letter number was not shown in the said list, the petitioner approached the 4^th respondent herein and wherein the petitioner was informed that the candidates were called as per their placement in the Select List and the petitioner will be called for in the subsequent batches. Individual call letters were given to the selected candidates directing them to attend the medical examination. Thereafter, the candidates who were found medically fit were sent for training in batches and after successful completion of the said training, they were engages as contract conductors.

¶9

As the petitioner did not receive any call letter directing her to attend for medical examination, the petitioner was not aware

¶10

of the medical examination conducted on 07.07.2011. But, however,

¶11

the case of the petitioner is that she made a representation on 10.09.2010 before the 4^th respondent. But, instead of that, no action has been initiated and the petitioner has never received a call letter. But, however, on coming to know that the other persons who are similarly placed were called for medical examination and thereafter, training was given to them and subsequently, they were appointed as contract conductors, the petitioners submitted representations on 15.04.2013 and 19.08.2014 and requested the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner also in view of the similarly placed candidates.

¶12

A counter affidavit is filed by the Law Officer, APSRTC, Vijayawada, on behalf of the respondents herein, wherein it is admitted that with regard to the notification dated 04.07.2009, after conducting the selections, the Selection Committee submitted proceedings duly empanelling 820 contract conductors in Chitttor Region vide proceedings No.E2/684(1)/2009-RM(TM), dated 24.09.2009.

¶13

In the said selections, the petitioner was selected for the post of contract conductor and was empanelled at serial no.779. Since most of the selected candidates were not absorbed, the panel validity was extended for a further period of 6 months i.e. up to

¶14

23.09.2011 and accordingly, the petitioner vide call letter no.247 was called for medical test on 07.07.2011 along with original certificates and duly enclosing a Demand Draft for Rs.2,500/- towards security deposit to attend the Regional Manager Officer, Tirupati, by way of a news paper publication in local edition in Vartha news paper and as well as in Sakshi.

¶15

But, instead of the said paper notification dated 07.07.2011, the petitioner has not attended for the medical examination before the expiry of the panel validity i.e. on 23.09.2011.

¶16

The case of the respondents is that neither the petitioner have attended the medical examination in pursuance of the paper notification dated 07.07.2011 nor has submitted any representation requesting for some time before the panel validity is expired i.e. on 23.09.2011, and have filed the present writ petition after the lapse of almost 4 years on the ground that though the petitioner has made representations on 15.04.2013 and 19.08.2014, the respondents have failed to consider her case.

¶17

Heard Mr. A.G. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel appearing for A.P.S.R.T.C.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that

¶19

out of the 13 left over candidates a few of them have filed W.P.No.35546 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court on 08.02.2012 as follows:

¶20

“Hence, taking the said representation on record, it is directed that the petitioners be appointed to the posts of Conductors on contract basis as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to pass similar order which was seriously objected by the learned Standing Counsel stating that there are lapses in the present writ petition.

¶22

Learned Standing Counsel has stated that immediately

¶23

after expiry of the validity period i.e. on 23.09.2011, the similarly placed persons have filed a writ petition and obtained orders from this Court and have approached the respondents by way of representations. Therefore, this Court has directed to consider their cases for appointment and in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court they would have been considered.

¶24

The learned Standing Counsel have also opposed with regard to the representations made by the petitioner on 15.04.2013

¶25

and 19.08.2014 on the ground that there is no such endorsement on

¶26

the said representations to show that they have been received and acknowledged by the respondents.

¶27

However, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders on the representations dated 15.04.2013 and 19.08.2014, if received by them to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶28

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶30

_______________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶31

Date: 24.04.2023.

¶32

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶33

W.P. No.2554 OF 2015

¶34

Date: 24.04.2023

¶35

ASH

P.Amala v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Amala v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guru Prasad Mishra Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

N.Vijayasree, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.v.Naga Vara Prasad, Vs Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple

Matta Geetha Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nandyala Depot. Vs Bannugari Basha

Dr. Sadarla Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh