Telangana High Court
Ahmed Khan, Mahaboobnagar Dist. vs Apsrt, Rep. By Its R.M., Apsrtc, ... on 17 November, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.4531 of 2006
ORDER:
1 Challenging the proceedings dated 04.10.2005 passed by the respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services from the date of his appointment at Tyre Mechanic with effect from 16.11.1992, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2 Petitioner submits that he was initially appointed as Tyre Mechanic under direct recruitment by the departmental selection committee, vide proceedings dated 13.11.1992 on daily wages @ Rs.60/- per day. Later on, time scale was given on 28.09.1997. Subsequently, without taking the consent from him, the petitioner was transferred from Tyre Mechanic to the post of Mill Wright Mechanic under Regulation 17 of the APSRTC Employees Recruitment Regulations, 1966 with usual allowance, vide order dated 28.09.1997 and posted at Narayanpet depot. The petitioner made representations for regularization of his services from the date of his appointment dated 16.11.1992 as Tyre Mechanic. But his services were regularized with effect from 03.10.1997 in the post of Mill Wright Mechanic, thereby he became junior in the cadre of Mill Wright Mechanic. Petitioner made representation to the respondent 10.11.2004 to allow him to perform his duties as Tyre Mechanic which was accepted and he was posted as Tyre 2 Mechanic vide order dated 10.11.2004. After his posting as Tyre Mechanic, he was surprised to note that he was treated as junior most in the cadre of Tyre Mechanic. The persons who were appointed long after his appointment as Tyre Mechanics are being considered to be seniors to him for next higher promotion whereas the petitioner was considered as junior in the cadre of Tyre Mechanic. It is his further case that upon his representation dated 10.11.2004 requesting for regularization of his services with effect from 16.11.1992 instead of 03.10.1997, the respondent had issued the impugned proceedings dated 04.10.2005 rejecting his claim contending that there was no clear vacancy available during the year 1992 and 1993. Hence the present writ petition.
3 Respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner was appointed as Tyre Mechanic on casual basis in Mahabubnagar Division on 13.11.1992 along with 6 other Tyre Mechanics as per the norms and the vacancies existed at that time. Subsequently, with the reduction of norms for the post of Tyre Mechanic, 12 Tyre Mechanics were found surplus, including seven casual Tyre Mechanics. During the year 1996 Trade tests were conducted to regularize the casuals and four casual Tyre Mechanics out of seven Tyre Mechanics were regularized in other trades such as Coach Builder and Painter etc. With regard to the remaining three causal Tyre Mechanics, permission of the Executive 3 Director, Hyderabad Zone was obtained to conduct Trade test to adjust them in other vacant trades since they were working as casual Tyre Mechanics from 13.11.1992 along with the four Tyre Mechanics who were regularized, without terminating their services. Accordingly, Trade test was conducted to the three casual Tyre Mechanics, including the petitioner, and they were regularized against the posts of Mill-Wright Mechanics on 03.10.1997. In such a manner, the petitioner was regularized as Mill-Wright Mechanic since no vacancies of Tyre Mechanics were existed and was transferred to Narayanpet depot in the post of Mill-Wright Mechanic. With regard to the representation made by the petitioner seeking regularization of his services with effect from 16.11.1992, the respondent submits that all the candidates were engaged on casual basis and the services of none of the seven casual Tyre Mechanics were regularized as Tyre Mechanics as there were no clear vacancies. Later, all the seven casual Tyre Mechanics, including the petitioner, were absorbed in other Trades on regular basis against the clear vacancies. Hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4 Heard Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Thoom Srinivas, the learned standing counsel for TSRTC and perused the material available on record. 4 5 The admitted facts culled out from the material available on record are that the petitioner was appointed as Tyre Mechanic, vide proceedings dated 13.11.1992 on daily wages @ Rs.60/- per day. The grievance of the petitioner was that his services were regularized with effect from 16.11.1992 instead of 03.10.1997 that too in the cadre of Mill-Wright Mechanic but not as Tyre Mechanic.
6 The contention of the respondent was that the petitioner was appointed as Tyre Mechanic on casual basis on 13.11.1992 along with six other Tyre Mechanics as per the norms and the vacancies existed at that time. Subsequently, as there was surplus strength in the cadre of Tyre Mechanic, the respondent instead of retrenching, adjusted the petitioner along with others in the cadre of Mill-Wright Mechanic on 03.10.1997, on regular basis against the clear vacancies.
7 Having accepted the proceedings dated 28.09.1997 and having served the organization for such a long time in the cadre of Mill-Wright Mechanic, the petitioner, now cannot take U turn and contend that his services ought to have been regularized in the cadre of Tyre Mechanic retrospectively from 16.11.1992. The petitioner himself admits that he was appointed on casual basis. So, if the petitioner had any grievance, he ought to have challenged the proceedings dated 28.09.1997 at the earliest point 5 of time. Moreover, on the representation dated 10.11.2004, made by the petitioner, he was re-posted as Tyre Mechanic vide order dated 10.11.2004.
8 Further, the impugned proceedings disclose that all the seven persons, including the petitioner, were appointed on casual basis in the year 1992 and that the services of none of these casual Tyre Mechanics were regularized as there were no clear vacancies in that particular cadre.
9 The contention of the petitioner that two other persons were recruited long after his appointment in the cadre of Tyre- Mechanic and they were shown as seniors to him was falsified in view of the fact that two persons were recruited on 14.02.1997 against Backlog vacancies of SC quota on regular basis. The services of the petitioner were regularized in the cadre of Mill- Wright Mechanic from 03.10.1997 and it is only on the request of the petitioner he was re-posted as Tyre Mechanic. But that cannot be a basis for the petitioner to claim seniority with effect from 16.11.1992.
8 For the above reasoning, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve any consideration in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.
69 In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
10 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
______________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 17-11-2022 Kvsn