Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Immedisetti Rama Rao vs A.P.S.R.T.C. on 29 July, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.20528 of 2012
JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard Sri Ch.Gopala Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M.R.Bala Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the respondents and perused the material on record.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-
"In these circumstances, I prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari., and quash the Award dated 05-12-2005 in I.D.No.157/2004 passed by Labour Court, Guntur (4th Respondent) and issue a consequential direction to the 1st and 2nd Respondents forthwith appoint me as bus conductor or any other appropriate post in the 2nd Respondent's Organization and pass such other order or orders as are deemed just and proper."
3. The petitioner worked as Conductor-cum-checking Inspector in a Private Bus service of the respondent No.3 from 01.10.1984 to 30.09.1986. He was removed from the service w.e.f 01.10.1986 due to nationalization of bus routes.
4. The petitioner filed W.P.No.14867 of 1989, in which this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for having been categorized as a displaced conductor. The respondent Corporation vide letter dated 30.12.1989 requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to direct the petitioners to attend the interview on 09.01.1990. But the petitioner failed to attend the interview before the reconstituted Selection Committee on the date 2 fixed and then the Divisional Manager, Ongole vide proceedings dated 11.01.1990 rejected the petitioner's claim.
5. The petitioner again preferred W.P.No.18321 of 1994, in which this Court by order dated 17.10.1994 directed the respondents Corporation once again to consider the plea of the petitioner for appointment by way of rehabilitation according to the circulars governing the matter, within the specified period and consequent thereto the petitioner's case was considered but was rejected on 27.04.1995 by the Senior Manager of the Corporation on the ground that the petitioner failed to put in one year continuous service period after nationalization and further on the ground that there was no vacancy against which he could be absorbed in the respondents Corporation, due to the reason that as per the instructions/guidelines only 2 drivers and 3 Conductors were entitled to be selected/absorbed.
6. The petitioner again preferred the W.P.No.19713 of 1996, in which this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for one of the vacant posts, along with other eligible candidates who applied for the same. In consideration of the said order, the Regional Manager issued notification vide proceedings dated 01.10.1997 inviting applications for the posts of conductor. The procedure for selection was through merit, of the marks obtained in 10th class, giving weightage marks to the age. In the selection procedure, the petitioner secured 72.4% marks whereas the person selected secured 87.6% marks and for the said reason, the petitioner could not be selected.
7. The petitioner filed ID.No.157 of 2004 under Section 2 (A) of the Industrial Disputed Act, 1948 as amended by Andhra Pradesh 3 Industrial Disputes Act 1987. The same was dismissed by the Labour Court, Guntur on 05.12.2005.
8. The Tribunal held that all the displaced drivers/conductors were not entitled for absorption after nationalisation of the bus routes and the ID case was filed after delay of 18 years, which was accordingly dismissed.
9. The present writ petition has been filed after a lapse of about 7 years as it was filed in the year 2012 whereas the award under challenge is dated 05.12.2005. The petitioner has not explained the laches in filing the writ petition.
10. Considering all the facts as mentioned above and in particular that the petitioner's case was rejected by the respondents on 27.04.1995 and again in the selection process the petitioner could not succeed, no case for interference is made out with the impugned order.
11. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
__________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 29.07.2022 SCS 4 11BbBBBB7446644654455554646 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI 87 WRIT PETITION No.20528 of 2012 Date: 29.07.2022 Scs