E CHANDRAIAH Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A displaced private transport employee approached this Court seeking directions to the Respondent Corporation for appointment as Conductor.

(2.) The petitioner worked on a Private Bus No.APC-2584 operating on the route State Talkies (Hyderabad) to Ibrahimpatnam. The said route was nationalised with effect from 1-3-1991, under G.O.Ms.No.74, dated: 23-2-1991. Consequent on the nationalisation, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The Corporation issued circular for rehabilitating the displaced employees on account of nationalisation of the private routes. The petitioner worked as Conductor on the said Private Bus from 1986 till the date of nationalisation. As per the circular issued by the Corporation, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment to the Post of Conductor. But, however his case was not considered. Therefore, he was constrained to file Writ Petition in W.P. No. 10918/91. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 4-2-1992 directing the Respondents to consider the matter and communicate the orders to the petitioner. Accordingly, it appears that the Departmental Selection Committe held its sitting on 14-5-1992 and rejected the case of the petitioner oh the ground that the petitioner did not produce the authentic documents like Vehicle Check Reports, Tripsheets, Wage Bills, Muster Rolls and P.P. Accounts. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Noushad Ali submits that as per the Circular issued by the Corporation, the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in the Corporation as he worked for more than one year and he possessed all the requirements for appointment to the Post of Conductor. The insistence on Vehicle Check Report etc., are not warranted as the Circular did not contemplate production of such documents. The only requirement that is mentioned in the circular is that the service particulars of the petitioners have to be certified by the Labour Enforcement Officer of the concerned area. Therefore, he submits that the proceedings of the Departmental Selection Committee are wholly illegal and without jurisdction.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the rejection of the case of the petitioner was justified as he did not produce any evidence in support of his employment under the private operator.