Disposed

Md. Abdul Mannan v. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC1 Nov 2011WP/29197/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposed of a writ petition by directing the Regional Manager of APSRTC, Nalgonda Region, to dispose of the petitioners' pending representation regarding their appointment to the post of Conductor Grade-II on a contract basis within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Regional Manager, Nalgonda Region, to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 04.03.2011 for appointment on contract basis within three weeks.

Md. Abdul Mannan Vs The Vice-Chairman and Managing… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 29197 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-APSRTC (for short, the Corporation).

¶5

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent-Corporation in not issuing the appointment orders to the petitioners for the post of Conductor Grade-II, though they are fully eligible under the Breadwinner Scheme and also were selected through the selection process, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Conductor Grade-II/Contract Conductor in the existing vacancies in Nalgonda Region/Hyderabad City Region.

¶6

The facts which are not in dispute are as under:The petitioners are the children of deceased employees.

¶7

They made a representation to the respondent-Corporation for appointment to the post of Conductor Grade-II, on compassionate grounds. By letter dated 07.02.2002, the petitioners were directed to attend the office of the 2^nd respondent-Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda, on 20.02.2002 for assessing their eligibility for the post of Conductor Grade-II, from amongst the children/spouses of the deceased employees. Further, on 30.04.2003, the petitioners were

¶8

advised by the Regional Manager, Nalgonda, to attend his office on 14.05.2003, along with passport size photographs, original SSC memo, caste certificate etc., for medical examination. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards security deposit, and the same was deposited.

¶9

On 21.06.2003, the Principal of the Transport Academy, APSRTC, issued proceedings stating that the petitioners are selected under the Breadwinner Scheme and directed them to undergo training at Zonal Staff Training College, Hyderabad Zone, Hakimpet. In the said proceedings, the petitioners names are placed at Serial Nos.12 and 13. The Principal, Transport Academy, vide proceedings dated 26.07.2003, informed the petitioners that since they were selected for the post of Conductor Grade-II under the Breadwinner Scheme and as they have completed their theoretical and practical training at Zonal Staff Training College, Hyderabad Zone, at Hakimpet, and also passed the test conducted on 26.07.2003, they were asked to report to the Personnel Officer for further instructions.

¶10

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Region, vide proceedings dated 11.02.2005, informed the petitioners that since their case was not considered for the post of Conductor Grade-II in Nalgonda Region in view of non-availability of sanctioned vacancies under the Breadwinner Scheme in Nalgonda Region, it is proposed to consider their case for appointment in Hyderabad City Region, depending upon the vacancy position, and in case the petitioners are willing to work in Hyderabad City Region, they may submit their willingness within a week’s time and, in case no option is given, the

¶11

petitioners would forego their claim for appointment in Hyderabad City Region subsequently and, further, there is no guarantee that sanctioned vacancies would arise in Nalgonda Region. Ultimately, the petitioners were not provided employment though they were recruited to the post of Conductor Grade-II under Breadwinner Scheme. In those circumstances, the petitioners filed W.P.No.20711 of 2005, questioning the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners as Conductor Grade-II under the Breadwinner Scheme. In the said writ petition, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.26435 of 2005, seeking direction to the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioners as Conductor Grade-II in APSRTC, under the Breadwinner Scheme. This Court, by order dated 21.09.2005, directed the respondents to consider feasibility of appointing the petitioners as conductors under the Breadwinner Scheme, since they have already been selected by a duly constituted selection committee, and underwent the training required for the posts of conductors.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the said order dated 21.09.2005 was not complied with by the respondents, the petitioners were constrained to file a contempt case in C.C.No.712 of 2006. Since there is no availability of sanctioned posts and, unless and until the Government sanctions the posts, there is no possibility for the respondent-Corporation to appoint the petitioners, and hence, observing the same, the contempt case was closed. It is further submitted by the petitioners counsel that the petitioners, on noticing that the respondent-Corporation is going to fill up certain posts of Conductor Grade-II on ‘contract basis’, made a

¶13

representation dated 04.03.2011, but due to ill health, the petitioners could not attend the respondent-Corporation for being considered for the post. Now that there appears to be some vacancies in the post of Conductors on ‘contract basis’, the petitioners’ case needs to be considered. However, the respondents have not passed any orders on the said representation made by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶14

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondentCorporation submits that, as on today, no such representation has been received by the respondent-Corporation and no appointments are being made on ‘contract basis’.

¶15

Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel, admittedly, it appears that the petitioners have been recruited to the post of Conductor Grade-II under the Breadwinner Scheme and, they also underwent the process of selection. They submitted willingness and also deposited necessary security deposit and are awaiting the appointment orders. Since the appointment orders are not issued, they were constrained to file writ petition No.20711 of 2005, wherein, this Court, by interim order dated 21.09.2005, directed the respondentCorporation to issue appointment orders to the petitioners for the post of Conductor Grade-II under Breadwinner Scheme. Since the said interim order was not complied with by the respondent-Corporation, the petitioners were constrained to file a contempt case and in the said contempt case, the plea taken by the respondent-Corporation was that there are no sanctioned posts available and, subsequently, certain persons were being appointed on ‘contract basis’. Unfortunately, due

¶16

to ill health, the petitioners could not avail the opportunity. Accordingly, they made a representation to the 2^nd respondent i.e., the Regional Manager, Nalgonda, requesting for considering their case for appointment to the post of Conductor Grade-II on ‘contract basis’ and the said representation is pending. If at all the respondent-Corporation is filling up the vacancies of Conductors on ‘contract basis’, then the respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the representation made by the petitioners.

¶17

Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2^nd respondent-Regional Manager, Nalgonda Region, is directed to dispose of the representation dated 04.03.2011 filed by the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶20

01^st November, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in 2 days B/o KSM

Md. Abdul Mannan v. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Abdul Mannan v. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nemmani Ravindra Murthy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt M.Padmavathi Vs The Executive Officer

Dr. Syed Jahangir Vs University Grants Commission

K.Premnath Vs The District Collector and Chairman, Mission for

P.Swamy Vs The Deputy chief Traffic Manager,Apsrtc Nalgonda Region

Dr. a. Prabhakara Rao, Vs The District Collector