T JAYASENA REDDY Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Consittution of India could prohibit the respondents-Corporation from enforcing a contractual obligation against the petitioner. This question has arisen in the backdrop of the following facts.

(2.) The petitioner joined the services of the respondents-Corporation as Traffic Inspector Grade-II on 22-6-1987. Thereafter- wards, the petitioner along with the other recruitees for the said post, underwent training for a period of eighteen months. As per the terms of the employment, the petitioner and other similarly circumstanced had to execute an agreement in favour of the respondents-Corporation undertaking to serve the Corportion for a period of atlcast five years on completion of the training and if for any reason they cannot serve for a period of five years, to refund sum of money received by them towards stipend during training. Accordingly, the petitioner had executed such an agreement in favour of the respondents-Corporation on 11-5-1987. When (he petitioner was working as Traffic Inspector Grade-II in die services of the respondents Corporation, he applied for the post of Excise Inspector in the services of the State Government and he was selected as Excise Inspector on 2-4-1989 and he requested the Corportion to accept his resignation to the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-II and relieve him from the office. Since the petitioner could not serve the Corportion for a period of five years in the respondents-Corporation as per the terms of the undertaking, the Corporation refused to accept the resignation tendered by the petitioner for the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-II on his selection to the post of Excise Inspector, insisting that unless the petitioner pays the amount received by him from the respondents Corporation towards stipend during his tenure as a trainee, his resignation would not be accepted and he would not be relieved. That brought the petitioner to this Court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) This Court while issuing Rule nisi, in W.P.M.P.No.7369 of 1989 on 19-4-1989 made an interim order directing the Corporation to relieve the petitioner from the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-II without insisting compliance with the terms of the agreement dated 11-5-1987. At the time of hearing, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner was relieved and he joined the services under the State as Excise Inspector and since men he has been working as such.