Telangana High Court
WP/28962/2008 of A.S. Reddy, Vs The Regional Manager, on 31 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 28962 of 2008 Between: A.S. Reddy, S/o. Potha Reddy, (E-850768) APSRTC, Adilabad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAWRIT PETITION NO : 28962 of 2008
Between:
A.S. Reddy, S/o. Potha Reddy,
(E-850768) APSRTC, Adilabad Region.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Adilabad Region, Adilabad District, Andhra Pradesh.
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of therespondent in deleting the petitioner's name from theapproved/selected list of conductors of APSRTC, Adilabad Region isbad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violation of principles of natural justiceby setting aside order proceedings No. E1/255(34)/2004-RM:ADB,dated 17-01-2006 of the respondent and consequently direct therespondent to restore the name of the petitioner in theapproved/selected list of conductors by protecting the past service inAPSRTC, Adilabad Region by engaging petitioner to duties and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY
The Court made the following :
O R D E R:-
Page 1 of 2
This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare theaction of the respondent in deleting the petitioner’s name from theapproved/selected list of Conductors of A.P.S.R.T.C., AdilabadRegion, as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the Proceedings dated17.1.2006 issued by the respondent and consequently to direct therespondent to restore the petitioner’s name in the approved/selectedlist of Conductors by protecting the past service in APSRTC, AdilabadRegion by engaging him to duties.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused thematerial placed on record.
This Court, on 29.6.2006, in similar case in W.P.No.13065 of2006, while allowing the writ petition held as follows:
Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, the writpetition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The name of the petitioner shall be continued in the panel ofselect conductors and the entrustment of the duties to thepetitioner shall depend upon the availability of work on theconcerned day. However, if the transfer becomes inevitable, thepetitioner shall be given the option, to choose the places of herchoice within the region.”
Inasmuch as the subject matter of the present writ petition issquarely covered by the orders passed in W.P.No.13065 of 2006,following the said order and for the reasons mentioned therein, this writpetition is also allowed in terms thereof. No costs.
______________
N.V.RAMANA, J31[st] December, 2008
bcj
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…