Y.Kumari v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9298 of 2005 ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioner was that the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) did not appoint her to the post of Conductor though she had successfully completed her training. She therefore sought a consequential direction to appoint her to the post of Conductor on par with one B.Mohan Rao along with all consequential benefits.

Though an interim order was passed by this Court on 26.02.2008 directing the APSRTC to consider the case of the petitioner for engagement as a Conductor pending the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was not appointed as a Conductor even thereafter.

The Law Officer, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner was provided training along with a batch of 25 candidates. While so, the Regional Manager of the APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, sent a letter dated 25.04.2000 requesting deputation of 44 Conductors from Vizianagaram region for temporary utilisation of their services. 66 Conductor candidates were called for counselling in this regard and 43 male and 1 female candidates expressed their willingness to go to Hyderabad City Region. The remaining 22 female candidates, including the petitioner, were stated to have expressed their unwillingness to go to Hyderabad City Region. Significantly, B.Mohan Rao, with whom the petitioner seeks to compare herself, expressed his willingness and was accordingly sent to Hyderabad City Region.

As the petitioner failed to express her willingness to go to Hyderabad City Region, it is stated that she was not given appointment. The Law Officer further stated that the panel of the year 2000 expired on 19.07.2001. This fact was also intimated to the petitioner when she subsequently sought appointment.

No reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner rebutting these averments in the counter-affidavit dated 20.09.2005. In the light of the aforestated facts, it is clear that the petitioner failed to agitate her grievance immediately and waited for nearly five years before approaching this Court. Admittedly, she was selected during the panel year 2000. Such a panel cannot be kept alive indefinitely and according to the APSRTC, it expired on 19.07.2001. The claim of the petitioner for appointment is therefore belated and cannot be entertained at this late stage.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:01.09.2015 GJ