B Venkatesh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP.

¶13

THE A P S R T C, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP.

¶14

THE REGIONAL MANAGER/DPTO A P S R T C, KURNOOL REGION, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL, AP.

¶16

THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C, ADONI DEPOT, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 toPleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not

¶19

2

¶20

DR,J W.P.No.30494 of 2025

¶21

considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds quota as illegal, unjust. Discrimination and as such liable to be set aside as contrary to well established principles of law, by consequently direct the Respondents herein to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post by considering his representation Dt.08- 05-2023, by relaxing the age criteria if any as per the APSRTC Regulations forthwith and to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.S M SUBHAN

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶26

3

¶27

DR,J W.P.No.30494 of 2025

¶28

The Court made the following ORDER:-

¶29

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶30

“…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds quota as illegal, unjust. Discrimination and as such liable to be set aside as contrary to well established principles of law, by consequently direct the Respondents herein to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post by considering his representation Dt.0805-2023, by relaxing the age criteria if any as per the APSRTC Regulations forthwith…”

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent – Corporation.

¶32

The contention of the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner was appointed as conductor in the year 2007 and while working, she died on 10.05.2018 and subsequently, the petitioner has made an application on 08.05.2023 for compassionate appointment i.e., after five years of the demise of the mother of the petitioner after completing his graduation. Despite receipt of the representation, the respondents have not considered and not passed any orders yet. Hence, the writ petition.

¶33

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent – Corporation has requested short time to file counter with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for consideration to compassionate appointment.

¶34

4 DR,J W.P.No.30494 of 2025

¶35

Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, the fact remains that the petitioner has made an application on 08.05.2023 and the respondents have not passed any orders so far. Hence, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the application made by the petitioner on 08.05.2023 and pass appropriate orders as per the regulations that are in vogue as on today. The said exercise should be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36