G NAGARAJU Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC TIRUPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The Petitioners approached this Court seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents Corporation to issue appointment order in pursuance of the selections made by them for the post of Conductor. It is the case of the petitioners that they registered their names in the Employment Exchange, Chittoor. The Corporation sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange, Chittoor for sponsoring the candidates for appointment to the 443 vacancies of Conductors in the divisions of Chittoor and Tirupati. Accordingly, the Employment Exchange sponsored the candidature of various persons including the petitioners. Interviews were held between 27-3-1992 to 2-4-1992 and the selection list was published on 2-4-1992 and the petitioners were selected in the selections made by the Respondents. However, the Respondents have not issued any appointment orders. The petitioners also submitted original educational certificates for verification. After the selection was made by the authorities, the selection list was sent to Employment Exchange to delete the names of the selected candidates from the rolls of the Employment Exchange and accordingly, their names were deleted from the Employment Exchange. It is the grievance of the petitioners that even though 400 persons were selected, the appointments were issued only to 255 candidates and the others were not given appointment order, with the result, the petitioners are put to serious disadvantageous position. They were not only denied the employment, but their names were permanently struck off from the rolls of the Employment Exchange. It is also the case of the petitioners that similarly situate persons approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7362/1994 and Batch and the same were allowed on 1 -4-1995. The learned single Judge directed not only the petitioners in the Writ Petition to be appointed as Conductors, but also the other persons who were put on the selection list also should be appointed. Against the said order of the learned single Judge, Writ Appeal No.850/1995 & Batch was preferred and it was disposed of by the Division Bench to which I am a party, granting relief to the writ petitioners therein. In view of the judgment of this Court, the petitioners submit that they should be given the same benefit. The petitioners further submit that they could not approach this Court for various domestic and family problems. Now the relief was confined to similarly situated persons who approached this Court, the petitioners are filing these writ petitions to grant similar relief.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the Corporation.