Petitioner challenged deletion from selection list due to alleged unavailability during a strike. Court allowed writ petition, restoring petitioner's position following a precedent.
Restoration of petitioner to the position he was in prior to deletion from the selection list.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 12293 of 2005
Between:
O. Venkateswarlu, S/o. anjaneyulu, R/o. 40-243, Bangar Peta, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman & M.D., Musheerabad,
Hyderabad,. 2 The APSRTC, rep. by its Regional Manager, Kurnool Region, at Kurnool, Kurnool district.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the questioning the action of the 2nd respondent herein in deleting the name of the petitioner from the selection list on the allegation of not reporting for duty without issuing any notice or order, as illegal, unjust and arbitrary, contrary to the regulations of the corporation and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY
The Court at the stage of admission made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondent in deleting the name of the petitioner from the selection list, on the allegation of not reporting for duty, without issuing any notice or order as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the regulations of the Corporation, and consequently direct the respondents to restore him to the same position as he was prior to the deletion.
2. According to the petitioner, he was selected as a Driver in the regular process of selection. However, after empanelling the drivers, they are being disengaged in the slack season. Similarly, when the petitioner was disengaged due to slack season, he went to his native place. However, on the ground that the petitioner did not attend for duties during the period of strike by the regular employees from 15-10-2001 to 07-11-2001, the petitioner’s name was deleted from the selected list. Hence, the present writ petition.
3 . At the time of hearing, it is represented that a similar issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.19210 of 2004 dated 14-10-2004 and the writ petition was allowed directing the respondents to restore petitioner therein position to the same place. Following the same, this writ petition is allowed.
4. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
S.ANANDA REDDY, J
13th June, 2005
SKM
To
1 The Vice Chairman & M.D., APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad,. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool Region, at Kurnool, Kurnool district.
3 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the deletion of petitioner's name from the selection list due to alleged absenteeism during a strike was illegal and arbitrary?
Whether the petitioner should be reinstated in view of an earlier judgment on similar facts?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.19210 of 2004 dated 14-10-2004Followed¶19
O. Venkateswarlu
The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman & M.D.
The APSRTC, rep. by its Regional Manager, Kurnool Region
S. ANANDA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
