High Court · 2025

2. P.Srinivas, S/o.P.Balaiah, Aged about 42 yea.s occ Junior Assistant, 3. Deepak Aurangabadkar, S/o.Jayanth Rao, Aged about 47 years Occ Junior 4. M.Ram Mohan Rao, S/o. Raghunandham Aged about 43 years Occ Junior 5. K.srikanth Goud, Sio.K.Raghupati, Aged about 44 yeals Occ Junior 6. P.Venkat Ramana, S/o.Late P.Srinivas Rao, Aged about 41 years Occ 7. K.Phani Prakash, S/o.K.Subrahmanyam Aged about 44 years Occ Junior Junior Assistant, E.1 1 4080 Assistant, E.114458 Assistant, E.1 14501 Assistant, E.114500 (All the petitioners are Fi./o.Hyderabad) ..'ETIT'ONERS AND 1 2 3 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad-20 The Exetutive officer, GH and HYD Zone, AP STate Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan,Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 The Divisional Manager (Sports), A.P. State Road Transport Corps- Sports and Cultural Organization, Office of the Managing Director Bus Bhavan,Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate writ order or direction. particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the order in Proceedings No.PD1tPD2l255(17y1998-PO.ll dated 1.7.2011 in so far as appointing the petitioners from 1.7.2011 instead of '13.5.1998 as illegal, unjust contrary to law arbitrary, discriminatory amounts to an irct of unfair labour practice and violative of Articles, '1 4,16 and 21 of the Con:;titution of lndia and consequently declare that the petitioners are entitled for ap pointment as Junior Assistants with effect from '1 3.5.1998 on par with their unior and grant all consequential benef its l.A. NO: 1OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 36091 OF 20121 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners for appointment as junior Assistants with effect from 13.5.'1998 or on par with i.heir juniors pending disposal of the writ petition l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 32687 OF 2017 ) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c.ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coutt may be pleased to hear the writ Petition on 'Out of Turn Basis' Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RACI Counsel forthe Respondents: SRl. R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER rw-/ 1 wp 28308_2012 NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.2830E of 2012 ORDER: The petitioners challenge the proceedings dated 0l-07-2011 issued by the 1't respondent, whereby the petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants (P) only with effect from01-07-2011 instead of from the date of selection, i.e., 13-05-1998, and *,ere denied the benefit of past sen,ice and regularization as extended to their juniols. The petitioners lr'ere selected under the Sportsman quota arrd had been serving the respondent Corporation continuously since tl'reir sciection dates. ranging from 01.02.1990 to 07.11.1994, each with commendable academic and sports/cultural backgrounds, including State and National tepresentation in Cricket, Athletics, Basketball, Drama, and Kuchipudi Dance. u'ith qualifications ranging fiom Intermcdiate to Post-Graduation and specialized diplomas. The petitioners were interviewed for the post of Junior Assistant in May 1998, and rvere also found rnedically fit, and therefore recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee by proceedings dated 12-08-1998 and 22-08-1998, yet were not issued appointment orders until 0l-07-2011, while their jtrniors tike Sri P.K.Safyam, Sri Hemarith Kumar,, and Sri Johnson Krupakar were appointed and regularized in 1998 itself allegedly through a pick-and- choose policy disregarding seniority. 'l'he petitioners claim to have discharged duties akin to Junior Assistants even while designated as Traffic Assistants, and they made several representations seeking regularization from 13-05-1998, but received no response. On earlier occasion, the petitioners filed W.P. No.906 of 2001, and this Court, by \ 2 wp_2a3O8 -2412 NBK, ] judgment dated24-06-2010, directed the respondent Corporation to take necessary steps, pursuant to which appointment orde rs ,nvere belatedly issr.red. The petitioners asserl that this delay deprived Ihem o{'legitimate erpectations, equal treatment, and serwice benefits du,: from the date of selection; and the petitioners therefbre seek a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint and regularize them as Junior As:;istants with effect fiom 13.05.1998 along with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Nlr. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Nir. R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for respondent- TSRTC. Perr-rsed the record.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.l stating that the petitioners were initially engaged as Tratlc Assistant; on a contractual basis and later selected for the post of Junior Assistant r-rnder the sports quota, pending amendment of the relevant Recruitmen - Requlations. Out of 17 such selected candidates. 7 of them including thc per,itioners, were ofI-ered regular appointment based on rvillingness to u.ork in zones outside Hyderabad, but the petitioners insisted on postings within Hyderabad Zone only, where vacancies were unavailable and W.P.No.9207 of 1996 filed by one Sri M. Paramesh,.,'/ar was pcnding, ieading to a legal opinion advising against appointments to supemumerary posts vide Letter dated 23.11.1999. (lonsequently, the petitioners continued as'Iraffic Assistants, and filed W P.No.906 of 2001 seeking appointment as JuniorAssistants (P), which uas disposed of on 24.06"2010 directing appointment if no s11y existed in W.P.No.9207i 1996; and accordingly, the petitioners !/ere appointed as .Iunior Assistants(P) vide Office Order dated 01.07.20i1 and allotted to \ I I 3 wp_28308_2012 N8K,.J Greater Hyderabad Zone. The present WP.No.28308 of 2012 seeks retrospective appointment from 13.05.1998, which is opposed on the grounds that the petitioners did not express willingness to work outside Hyderabad Zone unlike their juniors who were appointed earlier vide Office Order dated 23.04.1999, and that regularization can only occur after actual appointment and continuous working in that post. not rnerely based on selection. It is stated that the petitioners' contention regarding inaction on their representations is incorrect as appointrlents are zone- specific and vacancy-dependent, and that the Corporation went beyond the reserved quota in encouraging sportspersons; theretbre, as the appointments were made per availability and iegal ciearances, and the delay was due to the petitioners'own refusal to serve in other zones and the pendency of litigation, the prayer for retrospective appointment is untenabie and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner in response to the counter affidavit. The 2nd petitioner deposed on behalf of himself and petitioners I and 4, as the remaining petitioners are no longer in service with the Corporation. The petitioner submits that the assertion in Para 4 of the counter affrdavit-that the petitioners were not u'illing to work outside the Hyderabad Zone-is false, baseless, and made only to deny them regularization on par with their juniors. He states that neither he nor the other petitioners ever restricted thetnselves to the Greater Hyderabad Zone and that the respondent Corporation never sought any willingness from them. He relies on the earlier W.P.No.906 of 2001, wherein it was categorically asserted that they never refused posting in any other zone, and also clarifies that W.P.No.9207 of 1996, refered to by the i I 4 wp 28308_2012 NBK, J respondents, is unrelated and the petitioners are not 1.'arties therein ln reply to Para 5. the petitioner submits that the seven Lr'lrsons mentioned as regularized r.v.e.f. 23.04.1999 are juniors to him, and reiterates that no r.villingness was ever sought from him or the other petitioners' He contends that the respondents are fabricating f'acts to jus:ify their inaction. ln repiy to Para 6, he again assefts that juniors were regularizcd while petitioners were wrongly excluded on the basis of a faLse claim regarding their u,illingness. With respect to Para 8, the petitioner reiterates that the C)orporation's claim that they declined postings outside t{yderabad is untrue and a concocted story to cover up the discrimination' He empl.rasizes that their services were regularized onl,v on C 1.07.201 l, whiie .juniors were re gulatized on 23.04.1999, car'rsing serious injustice' He srrbmits that the respondent's justifications are legalll' unsound" and the blame is being unlairly shifted onto the petitioners. He accordingly prays that the llon'bic Court may direct the respondenl" Colporation to regularize their services as Junior Assistants with e{I'ect frorn 23.04.1999. on par with theirjuniors, to prevent further hardship and irreparablc loss' Learned counsel for the petitioners would esserl .ially contend that

5. the petitioners. who were engaged as Junior Assistants in the respondent - their services on Corporation, were unlawfully denied regularization o par rvith their juniors, despite being sirnilarly situated; that the Corporation's allegation in the counter affidavit- natnely. that the petitioners expressed unwillingness to work in zon':s other than the Greater Hyderabad Zone-is false, baseless, and unsupported by any record; that at no point were the petitioners askecl to furnish their willingness for appointrner.tt in other zones; that in W P.No.906 of 2001, 1) 5 wp_28308_2012 NBK, J it was categorically stated that the petitioners never refused to work in aty zone, and such stand remains consistent throughout; that reliance placed by the respondent on W.P.No.9207 of 1996 is wholly misplaced, as the petitioners were not parlies therein and the subject rnattcr is distinct; that thc petitioners' juniors were regularized with effect liom 23.04.I999, whereas the petitioners were regularized belatedly on 01.07.201 [ u'ithout any valid justification; and that the respondent Corporation is now attempting to justi$, this inaction by taking a concocted stand which has no factual or legal basis. Leamed counsel would therefore seeks a writ ol mandamus directing the respondent authorities to regularize thc sen'ices of the petitioners with effect from 23.04.1999, on par r.vith their.iurliors. Learned counsel for the respondent, basing on the cottnter affidavit,

6. essentially contends that the petitioners were not regularizcd along with their juniors due to their own unwillingness to accept postings outside the Greater Hyderabad Zone; that while other similarly situated persons expressed willingness to work in other zones and were accordingly regularized with effect from23.04.1999, the petitioners insisted on being considered only for Hyderabad Zone, thereby disentitling themselves from earlier regularization; that the Corporation had in fact sought willingness from all candidates, and only those rvlto responded affinnatively were appointed in the available vacancies across different zones; that the petitioners' assertion that they were never asked for willingness is incorrect and contrary to record; that the decision not to regularize the petitioners earlier was taken in accordance with administrative necessity and availability of posts in different zones, and cannot be termed arbitrary or discrimina(ory; that the petitioners were \@Et. : .,;+ 6 wp_28308_2012 NBK, I evcntuallv re-sularized on 0l .07.2011 when vacancies became available in the preferred zonet and that thc reliance placed on \\ P.No.906 of 2001 does not advancc thc petitioners'case as the issues lriseci therein were dul\/ ccrnsidered and rejected. It is therefore conten,jcd that the r.vril pctition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the respective contenticns ar.rd pcrused thc record. it rnay be noted that the petitioners were engaqed as Junior Assistants in thc rcspondent-Corporation and have heen continuously rvorking since the early 1990s, and their services werr regularized only rvith eft'ect fioln 0l -07-20 [ I , i.vhereas theil juniors r.r ,.re r.egularized as earlv as 23-04-rtr99. Though it is contended by the l,-.arneri Standing Counsel that thc petitioners did not express willingnc;s to work in thc zoncs or-riside ol'llyderabad, there is no material plac,:d to substantiate that contention. ()n the contrary, it is the specific r. ontention of the pctitioners that at no point,uvere they asked to express r.r,illingness to work in zones other tl',un the Hl,derabad 7.one, and they n,,r,er rel-used such nostinqs. and th:rt the services of their jurriors were rcrrularizcd u,ithout an1,sr-rchcondilior.rs. Furtheq the Office Orderdated 0l 07.2011 makes a re ler-ence of' thc lloard Resolution dated 3 1 .08. I 998, anc Lhc Order of th is (,ourt in W.P\o.906 of 2001 dated 24.06.2010. 'he order datcd 24.06.20i0 in WI'}No.906 of 2001 would show that rhis Clorrrt directed to take steps for issLring appointment orders if there are t.,o stay orders ["ry. this Court. The page No.2 of the Office Order dated 0 .07.201 I , u,hich listed dorvn the lerrrs and conditions ofthe appointment. is apparently the standard lerms/conditions of appointment; and a pen sal of the sante rvould shorv that there is no such condition stipulaterl ahout possiblc I ) 7 wp 28308_2012 NBK, J postponementlregularization of appointment basing on willingness or otherwise for work outside of Hyderabad zone, or any other zone. Fufihermore, the delay in issuing offers of appointment, as can be seen from the submissions made in W.P.No.906 of 2001, is apparently due to interirn orders in W.P.No.9207 of 1996; and therefbre, the dclay occasioned cannot be attributed to the petitioners. In that view ol the matter, the action of respondent-Corporation in delaying the regularization of the petitioners' services, while regularizing the sen'ices of their juniors earlier, cannot be countenanced.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. and the respondent- Colporation is directed to regularize the services of tl-re petitioners on par with their juniors, with effect from the respective dates of their initial appointment, wittuali consequential benefits, as per law. Necessary orders to this efl-ect shall be passed by the respondent-Corporation within fbur weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above Witness THE HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, WEDNESDAY TWENry EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 'THE //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.AMMAJI DEPUW REGISTRAR E ICER To, Bhavan, Hyderabad-20 Corporation, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, l]Yderabad-20 1- The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Z. ine giecutive officer, GH and HYD Zone' AP STate Road Transport 3. The Divisional Manager (Sports), A.P. State Road -Transport Corps Sports - ana Cultural Orgaiization, Office of the Managing Director Bus 4. one cc to sRl. A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Bhavan, Musheerabad, HYderabad-20 M B M /BSK HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.28308 of 2012 r yrE STI ; €' "4 6( 2tJUN2m t r:i-_ - ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I (, ,A ! l I i I I I I I I L ; i I I i I I I I I ll,I l, i I 1