B. Nagarjuna v. The Apsrtc

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19212 OF 2002 ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is that petitioner's father late Sri B.Peeraiah, died in harness while working as Driver under the control of 3rd respondent on 26.06.2000, leaving behind his wife, petitioner and two younger children. As the petitioner's family does not have any source of income, petitioner's mother made an application on 03.02.2001 seeking employment to the petitioner and the same was rejected by the respondent-Corporation vide proceedings dated 07.05.2001, holding that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Cleaner. Thereafter, the petitioner made another application on 27.07.2002 to the 2nd respondent duly enclosing a copy of the 8th class certificate with a request to provide employment. But the same was also rejected. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

The respondents filed counter admitting that the petitioner's father worked as Driver in the respondent Corporation and expired on 26.06.2000; and that the petitioner made a representation on 03.02.2001 and after examining the same it was rejected on the ground that petitioner has no requisite qualification for the post of Cleaner and Conductor grade-II and advised the petitioner to submit claim application for additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment. It is also stated that the petitioner's mother made a representation dated 13.08.2002 with a request to provide employment to her son who passed VIII class privately as per the terms of Circular No.PD.30/00, dated 05.05.

2000; and that same was examined but since the petitioner is not having required qualification, his case could not be considered and the same was also informed to the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.

In this case the Corporation has rejected the case of the petitioner twice on the ground that he is not qualified for the post of Cleaner. It is to be seen

that at the time of admission, this Court has granted interim order to appoint the petitioner as cleaner, but from the counter it is not clear whether the petitioner was appointed or not. If the petitioner is not appointed in terms of the interim order, it is open for the petitioner to make application seeking additional monetary benefits as stated in the counter affidavit. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 28.09.2015 tk