The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a displaced employee. Prior to the Nationalisation of the route from Ongole to Gadipathivaripalem, he worked as Supervisor on the displaced vehicle bearing No.AAE.8788 on the said route, which was nationalized in the year 1987. Though the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the owner of the vehicle, he failed to attend the interview. Therefore, he was not selected as Conductor at the time of Nationalisation of the said route. There after, he approached the Labour Officer, Ongole, for absorption as Conductor in the displaced quota. Basing on the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner showing that he worked on the said route from August 1985 to September 1986 and as the route was nationalized, the Labour Officer vide letter No.LR/L.Dis.7282/94, dated 10.11.1994 addressed a letter to the respondentCorporation stating that the petitioner is a genuine displaced employee and a Certificate was also issued by the owner of the vehicle to that effect. There after, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent herein, but no action has been taken. It is also the case of the petitioner that though the case of the petitioner was not initially considered for absorption as Conductor, the then Regional Manager, Prakasam District, Ongole, placed the matter before the Departmental Selection Committee for review of the matter. The Committee opined that two drivers and four conductors were already absorbed on the vehicle and that the candidates
