Telangana High Court
WP/5494/1999 of P. Satyanarayana, s/o. Kama Raju, Vs Regional Manager, APSRTC Srikakulam Division, on 29 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5494 of 1999 Between: 1. P. Satyanarayana, s/o. Kama Raju, Aged 35 years, Door No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 5494 of 1999
Between:1. P. Satyanarayana, s/o. Kama Raju, Aged 35 years, Door No. 3-8-37/C, GajulaVeedhi, Srikakulam District.2. V. Ravi Kumar s/o. Narayana Swamy, Aged 32 years,r/o. D.No. 7-6(1)-358,Reddika Veedhi, Srikakulam Dist3. A. Murali Venkata Venugopala Krishna, s/o. Venkata Ratnam ,Aged years, Ambakandi (village & Post) Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.
AND
..... PETITIONERS
1. Regional Manager, APSRTC Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam District.2. Vice- Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC. Musheerabad,Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased todeclare the action of the Respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioners forabsorption into APSRTC service as per the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.20309 of 1998 dt. 22.7.1998 is highly arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory andviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such illegal and further directthe respondents to absorb the petitioners herein forth with.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.GAJENDER REDDYCounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI (S.C.FORAPSRTC)
The Court made the following:
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:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also thelearned standing counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation.
The petitioners, who claim to be the displaced employees, as aconsequence of the nationalization scheme enunciated for and onbehalf of the respondents-Corporation, filed this writ petition, inter alia, seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of therespondents in rejecting their case for absorption into service, asalready directed in terms of the orders passed in W.P.No.20309 of1998.
The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that having regard tonationalization scheme, the petitioners, who worked under theerstwhile owners of the vehicle, are entitled to be considered forappointment in the respondent-Corporation herein on par with severalother similar such employees, who have been displaced as aconsequence of nationalization. On earlier occasion, the petitionershave filed W.P.No.20309 of 1998 and the same was disposed of on22-07-1998 directing the respondents to consider the case of thepetitioners for absorption. However, without giving proper credence tothe said orders, the respondents have rejected their case by theimpugned order dated 21-01-1999 only on the ground that there istotal ban on further absorption and appointment of displaced employees into the service of the Corporation in view of circularissued by them dated 16-07-1998. Hence, the writ petition.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents herein, it is submittedthat the petitioners have not specified about their working under theerstwhile owners of the vehicle and had not furnished any particularsand further the petitioners did not appear for the interview also. Apartfrom this, several other objections were sought to be pointed out.
Considering the submissions made on both sides and also onperusal of the record, the only question which falls for consideration iswhether the petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointmentand absorption into the service of the respondent-Corporation, beingdisplaced employees, consequent upon the nationalization scheme.
Conclusion
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners havebeen questioning the aforesaid remedy to the respondent-Corporation, which led to filing of the earlier WP.No.20309 of 1998,which was disposed of by this Court as per orders dated 22-07-1998,whereunder a direction was given to the respondents to considertheir case. In the rejection order, the only reason shown by therespondent-Corporation is the ban imposed by the Corporation. Theother reasons, as sought to be shown in the counter-affidavit, are notshown in the impugned order. It is well settled that any reason whichis not part of the order, cannot be sought to be introduced throughcounter-affidavit and cannot be accepted.
In view of the fact that the petitioners have pointed out that therespondent-Corporation appointed more than hundred employees asConductors even subsequent to the said ban, there is no justificationin rejecting the petitioner’s case. Consequent to nationalizationscheme, displaced employees have to be provided with alternativeemployment. In view of the same, I do not find any justification inrejecting the case of the petitioners merely on such ground.
` The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondents toconsider the case of the petitioners afresh on merits for absorption into service, subject to satisfaction as to their employment under theerstwhile owners of the vehicle in question. It shall be open for thepetitioners to file appropriate detailed representation pointing out allthese aspects and also by giving details and further proof in supportof their earlier employment, which will be considered on merits anddisposed of in accordance with law. No costs.
Lrkm.
29-12-2004.
____________________
That Rule Nisi is made absolute as above.
Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on thisFriday the thirty first day of December Two thousand and Four.
……….REGISTRAR
1. Regional Manager, APSRTC Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam District.
2. The Vice- Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC.
Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
3.2CD copies.