CH POSHAM Vs. VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was provisionally selected for appointment as Driver in the APSRTC by proceedings dated 26-3-1992. He was directed to attend the Zonal Staff Training College, Warangal for training from 1-2-1994. The petitioner failed to attend the said college for training and absented himself unauthorisedly. However, on a representation subsequently made by him to the Minister for Tribal Welfare in the year 1996 he was treated as a fresh case and called for training along with the fresh batch of newly selected Drivers. Accordingly he was sent for training in the month of November, 1996. After completion of the training, the posting order was given to him on 11-1-1997, posting him to the Bhainsa Depot in the Adilabad District. The petitioner, however, failed to report for duty at Bhainsa. After the lapse of more than nine months he reported for duty on 27-9-1997 along with a medical certificate stating that he fell sick and he could not, therefore, report for duty earlier. He was, however, not allowed to join duty in view of the long lapse of time. When the petitioner made a representation requesting to admit him to duty, the same was turned down by the impugned proceedings dated 28-2-1998. Hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to take him into service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the representation made by the petitioner was considered by the Regional Manager and the same was rejected, as the petitioner failed to avail the repeated opportunities given to him. It is also stated that the petitioner has not furnished any information regarding his alleged illness to the respondents, and that the writ petition is without any merit. Though the petitioner claims that he could not join duty as he fell sick and also produced the medical certificate, the facts of the case and the material on record disclose that the petitioner has not at all been diligent. Though he was initially selected long ago in the year 1992 and deputed for training, he willfully absented himself. Another opportunity was given to him in the year 1996 by sending him for training along with the newly selected candidates and a posting order was also given to him on 11-1-1997 but he failed to report for duty for more than nine months. If really he fell sick, one would have expected him at least to intimate the authorities about the same immediately. Without doing so, after absenting himself for more than nine months, he leisurely reported for duty along with the medical certificate. The conduct of the petitioner does not appear to be bona fide. That apart, the order of appointment given to him states that the engagement is purely on temporary basis and does not confer any right for regular appointment at a future date. It also provides that if the work is found to be unsatisfactory, it is liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons and without any notice.

(3.) Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition is allowed