Sk. Phoujiya vs The Telangana State Road ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2313 Tel

       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

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.

1998(6) ALD 9

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

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