Disposed

S.R.K.Nagaraju, v. The Depot Manager,Apsrtc

Telangana HC25 Jul 2011WP/14242/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court found that the respondent authorities considered the petitioner under the direct recruitment quota contrary to a notification specifying departmental candidates. The court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's case under the departmental quota within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case under the departmental quota within four weeks.

S.R.K.Nagaraju, Vs The Depot Manager,Apsrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14242 of 2007

Dated 25.7.2011

Between:

S.R.K. Nagaraju.

…Petitioner.

And:

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kothagudem Depot, Khammam District and others.

¶9

…Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.14242 of 2007 ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing him by promotion to the post of conductor grade-II in accordance with regulations and the circular No.PD-6/92, dated 18.2.1992 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, to direct the respondents to appoint him by promotion to the post of conductor grade-II in pursuance of notification No.E2/684 (3).97-RM:KMM. Dated 27.9.1997, by implementing the APSRTC Recruitment Regulations, 1996 by following the circular PD6/92, dated 18.2.1992.

¶13

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that initially, he was appointed as conductor in the year 1975 and while he was working in Kothagudem depot, he was removed from service in the year 1984. Aggrieved by the same, he raised an industrial dispute which was numbered as I.D.No.39 of 1987 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Warangal. The Labour Court passed an award on 17.7.1999 directing the Corporation to appoint him as a fresh cleaner instead of conductor. Questioning the said award, he filed W.P.No.3672 of 1991, and obtained interim stay of the award. On filing vacate stay petition in

¶14

W.V.M.P.No.148/93, the stay granted by this Court was vacated on 22.6.1993. Thereafter, on 26.8.1993, he was reinstated into service as a cleaner and in pursuance of the same, he was posted to Bhadrachalam Depot. Subsequently, he also filed W.P.No.1086 of 1993 challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in so far as granting relief of reinstatement as fresh cleaner instead of conductor is concerned, but the said writ petition was dismissed on 1.4.1997.

¶15

It is his further case that while he was working in Manugur Depot as a Cleaner, the 3^rd respondent issued notification dated 27.9.1997 calling upon the applications for the post of conductor Grade-II from the eligible departmental candidates and the children of employees died in harness. In pursuance of the said notification, he has applied for that post as departmental candidate. The Depot Manager, Manuguru has directed him vide letter dated 17.12.1997 to attend the interview for the said post on 29.12.1997 at 10.A.M., at the office of the 2^nd respondent. Accordingly, he had appeared for the interview. However, in the results published on 23.12.1997, he was not selected for the reasons best known to them.

¶16

It is his further case that the 2^nd respondent did not follow the procedure as contemplated under the Recruitment Regulation and the circular instruction in PD No.6 of 1992 dated 18.2.1992. He approached the APSRTC Karmika Sangh who represented his case before the 2^nd respondent and requested to implement the provisions of the recruitment regulations to the post of conductor grade –II in its true letter and spirit and requested to appoint him by promoting to the post of conductor Grade-II as a departmental candidate. Since there is no response forthcoming from the respondents, he had submitted his representations on 18.3.1999, 25.9.2000, 12.8.2001 personally and also through the Union on 23.3.2002, 26.8.2004 and finally on 19.7.2005.

¶17

It is his further case that in Warangal Region, Circular No.PD-6/92, dated 18.2.1992 has been implemented and one

¶18

K.Babu, Security Guard E 098243, has been appointed by way of promotion for the post of conductor Grade-II from among the departmental candidates whereas the 3^rd respondent failed to follow the same and thereby, the petitioner has been deprived of the appointment by promotion to the post of conductor Grade-II. Since there was no response for the representations made by him and the Union, he was constrained to file W.P.No.8562 of 2006 and this Court on 25.4.2006 while dismissing the writ petition directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and communicate the result of the interview conducted on 29.12.1997. In response to the above order, the 3^rd respondent sent a letter dated 18.7.2006, wherein it is clearly stated that the Selection Committee has considered his case in direct recruitment and furnished the marks secured by him and ultimately he was informed that he was not selected for that post on the ground the last candidate who was selected could secure 82.40 whereas he secured only 79 marks. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent issued a letter dated 14.2.2007 intimating that with reference to his representation and the letter of the 3rd respondent, his case has been examined and the Departmental Selection Committee has not considered his case under promotion quota. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶19

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶20

It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner worked as conductor at Kothagudem depot and was removed from service on 26.10.1984 on the ground that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities. Upon contesting the matter before the Labour Court, warangal in I.D.No.39 of 1987, the Labour Court directed the respondent to appoint the petitioner afresh as ‘Cleaner’ from the date of publication of the award. Thereby, the petitioner was appointed as cleaner on 26.3.1993 at Bhadrachalam Depot.

¶21

It is further stated in the counter affidavit that a notification was issued on 27.9.1997 calling for applications for the post of Conductor Gr.II in Khammam Region. The petitioner made an

¶22

application to the post of conductor Grade-II. The selection committee conducted interviews during the period from 26.12.1997 to 29.12.1997 and his case was not considered for the post of Conductor under departmental quota in view of the observations made by the Labour Court in I.D.No.39 of 1987 dated 17.7.1990. The petitioner also applied under direct recruitment quota. The petitioner was not selected to the post of Conductor in direct recruitment quota also on the ground that he secured less marks when compared to others. He belongs to B.C. (D) community and in the community wise merit list, he stood at S.No.30 and the candidates who stood up to S.No.12 in the list were selected. The last man selected from BC (D) community secured 82.4 marks.

¶23

It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner filed W.P.No.8562 of 2006 before this Court. This court dismissed the writ petition directing the respondents to consider his representation, if any, and communicate the result of the interview conducted on 29.12.1997 to him, if not already communicated. In view of the orders of this Court, the result of the interview conducted on 29.12.1997 was communicated to him vide office letter dated 18.7.2006 which was acknowledged by him on 29.7.2006. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and does not warrant any interference from this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that as per the notification dated 27.9.1997, the applications were called for to the post of conductor Grade-II from the eligible Departmental candidates and children of the employees died in harness. There is no provision under the notification-dated 27.9.1997 for the direct recruitment. He has requisite qualifications as required under regulations for appointment by promotion from the category of employee in lower grade and the respondents have rightly entertained his application for the post of conductor Grade-II under promotion category. Therefore, the respondents have no other option except to consider his case under the said notification. But, unfortunately the respondents

¶25

have intentionally rejected his case under Departmental Candidates quota. The said action is arbitrary and contrary to law. It is further stated that it is absolutely incorrect to state that he had also applied under the direct recruitment quota. He is due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation by 31.10.2011. There are absolutely no merits in the counter filed by the respondents and hence, he prays to allow the writ petition as prayed for.

¶26

On 5.7.2007, this Court while admitting the writ petition, issued notice. Along with writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.17892 of 2007 seeking to direct the 3^rd respondent to consider the candidature for appointment by promotion to the post of conductor grade-II, pending disposal of the writ petition. On 15.11.2007, this Court in the said W.P.M.P. passed the following order:

¶27

“Counter is filed. Unless the writ petition itself is disposed of, no relief as sought for in this W.P.M.P. can be granted. Hence, the W.P.M.P. is dismissed.

¶28

Registry is directed to post the writ petition for final hearing in usual course.”

¶29

Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶30

On the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the case of the petitioner has been considered in consonance with the terms and conditions as stipulated under the notification in question.

¶31

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner under the quota of Departmental Candidates is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment regulations in question and circular instructions in P.D.NO.6/92, dated 18.2.1992. It is further contended that the 3^rd respondent having invited the applications from the Departmental Candidates who fulfilled the requisite qualifications cannot deviate the notification

¶32

dated 27.9.1997 and select the candidates only for direct recruitment and therefore, it amounts to contrary to the conditions stipulated in the notification and therefore, the same is unsustainable in the eye of law. It is further contended that the 3^rd respondent has totally ignored the other Departmental candidates who applied for the recruitment of conductor grade-II in pursuance of the notification dated 27.9.1997 and selected only the candidates applied on direct recruitment. Hence, the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioner who is fully eligible to hold the post of conductor grade-II is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction.

¶33

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner also applied under the direct recruitment quota and he was not selected to the post of Conductor in direct recruitment quota on the ground that he secured less marks when compared to others.

¶34

Thus, the entire issue revolves around the notification. Therefore, it is relevant to go through the notification dated 27.9.1997, which makes it clear that it has been issued for the recruitment for the post of conductor Gr.II in Khammam region from the eligible departmental candidates.

¶35

It is an admitted fact in the counter itself that the case of the petitioner has been considered under direct recruitment quota and accordingly, he was not selected on the ground that he secured lesser marks than others.

¶36

However, the fact remains undisputed that the petitioner has been working as a cleaner and he applied under the notification in question as a departmental candidate. If that being the case, the consideration of the case of the petitioner under direct recruitment as admitted by the respondents, amounts to violation of the very spirit and demur of the notification in question.

¶37

In this background of the matter, without expressing any

¶38

opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it a fit case wherein the respondents-authorities can be directed to consider the case of the petitioner under the departmental quota as per the spirit and demur of the notification in question and in accordance with the rules and regulations in question, on the basis of the marks secured by him in the interview for the post of conductor grade II, within a period of four (4) Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶40

________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH

¶41

Dated 25.7.2011. Dvs

¶42

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶43

WRIT PETITION No.14242 of 2007

¶44

Dated 25.7.2011