HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.26796 of 2019
ORDER :
The petitioner is aggrieved of the action of respondents in not considering her case for appointment to the post of Conductor in TSRTC and sought for consequential direction directing the respondents to appoint her as Conductor.
2. Heard Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.
3. Pursuant to the notification dated 25.05.2011, the petitioner has applied for the post of Conductor and attended for certificate verification. Thereafter, when the candidates who were less meritorious than her were selected, she has approached the respondents and enquired with regard to her non-selection. On that, she came to know that she was not appointed as she was not a local candidate of the District and that she has not produced her study certificates showing that she is a local candidate. Thereafter, the petitioner has made several representations to furnish a copy of her 2 JS, J W.P.No.26796 of 2019 application and in response to the same, the 2nd respondent has sent a letter dated 09.04.2014 stating that she has not submitted the Study certificates from 4th class to 7th class, as such, her candidature was rejected. It was also clarified that till date, the vacancy under BC-E(W) category is not filled up because of non- availability of suitable candidate. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to the same category and therefore, she is eligible for appointment as per Regulation 8(4) which reads as follows:
"Other things being equal, preference shall be given to a candidate who is domiciled in the State of Andhra Pradesh and who is conversant with atleast one of the regional languages...."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that restricting the recruitment to a particular District goes contrary to the above Regulation. He further submits that it was also against the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.Srinivas vs. Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda District 1 and also against the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.741 of 1999, dated 09.06.1999.
1 1998(6) ALD 9 3 JS, J W.P.No.26796 of 2019
5. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as she was not the local candidate of Nalgonda District.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record and also in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.Srinivas (supra) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.741 of 1999, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner for appointment as Conductor shall be considered in accordance with rules without denying the appointment on the ground that she does not belong to Nalgonda District.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2016. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Conductor in accordance with Rules, without reference to the fact that she does not belong to Nalgonda District, within a period of 4 JS, J W.P.No.26796 of 2019 two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:13.09.2023 Smk