Telangana High Court
WP/27415/2005 of S.Kaja Hussain, Vs The APSRTC, rep by its Regional Manager, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY DATED: 26-12-2005 WRIT PETITION No.27415 OF 2005 BETWEEN: S.Kaja Hussain . . .Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool and another . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27415 OF 2005 O R D E R: The
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
DATED: 26-12-2005
WRIT PETITION No.27415 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
S.Kaja Hussain . . .Petitioner
And
The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool
and another . . .Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27415 OF 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
The petitioner was employed as a Driver, to be assigned the duties oncasual basis, in the year 2000. He performed his duties for some time, as andwhen they were assigned to him. A strike was called in the organization in themonth of October, 2001. The Corporation issued notifications dated 12-10-2001and 19-10-2001 requiring the casual drivers, to report to duties. Thenotifications were published in the press. The petitioner did not respond to thesame. Therefore, the Regional Manager, Kurnool, first respondent, issued afinal notice, dated 30-10-2001, informing the petitioner that if he fails to report tothe duty, it would be deemed that he is not interested in being engaged asdriver and that his name would be deleted from the list of selected candidateswithout any further notice. The petitioner challenges the action of therespondents in deleting his name.
Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, had urged severalcontentions before this Court challenging the action of the respondents. He hasalso placed reliance upon the orders passed by this Court in some of the writpetitions.
Learned standing counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,submits that the respondents followed the procedure prescribed by law and thepetitioner cannot be said to have suffered any and that it cannot be said thatthere is any illegality in their action.
A perusal of the final notice, dated 30-10-2001, discloses that the firstrespondent has put the petitioner on notice and informed that in case, he doesnot report to duty, it will be deemed that he has no interest in being continued in the list of selected drivers. It was also informed that no further notice would beissued in the matter of deletion of the names from the list. Reference was alsomade to two notices published in the press.
The petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the final notice nordid he report to duty. The necessity of conducting a regular departmentalenquiry did not arise, on account of the fact that the petitioner was not yetappointed as a full member of service. The respondents have given ampleopportunity to the petitioner and complied with the principles of natural justice.No exception can be taken for their action in deleting the name of the petitionerfrom the list of approved drivers.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear thatas and when the respondents undertake any recruitment of any category to thepost of driver, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered. There shallbe no order as to costs.
26[th] DECEMBER, 2005.
kvni
________________________
(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)