P. Bhaskara Reddy vs Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Kakinada and Another

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This Writ Petition relates to the rehabilitation of the displaced employees of the private buses on account of the nationalisation of the route concerned. The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to absorb him in the service of A. P. S. R. T. C. in the post of a Conductor. He was working as Checker in a private bus - AAV 9422 - plying between Jaggampeta and Biccavole. On account of the nationalisation of the bus routes in East Godavari District in the year 1991, the employees of the erstwhile private buses became suddenly unemployed. To alleviate the same, a scheme was framed to absorb them by way of rehabilitation measure. For each of the buses went off the road due to nationalisation, a policy decision was taken to employ 5 persons, namely two drivers and three conductors. A Division Bench of this Court held that even if the displaced personnel are more than five in number, they should be wait-listed and should be absorbed in future vacancies on preferential basis. But, that situation does not arise in the instant case.

The ground on which the petitioner was not absorbed is that he was not holding a conductor''s licence on the date of nationalisation and that is how the learned Counsel for A. P. S. R. T. C. defends the action of his client in not absorbing the petitioner as a conductor.

Ms. Vinitha Reddy, strenuously contends that for the bus in which the petitioner worked, only four personnel were employed i.e., two drivers and two conductors and still one post of conductor has to be filled up. This factual position is not disputed by the APSRTC. If that be so, she contends that merely because the petitioner was not holding a conductor''s licence as on the date of nationalisation, he should not be deprived of the benefit of absorption, as, on the date when his plea was considered he was holding a conductor''s licence. What she pleads is, may be that the requirement of holding a conductor''s licence for the post of conductor is there in the circular, but that is only directory and not mandatory and the form of requirement is not the criterion, but the substance has to be considered. Ms. Vinitha Reddy contends that the petitioner was a Checker knowing the job of a conductor and his function was to see whether the conductor was doing his hob well. In fact, the post of Checker is equivalent to that of Ticket Inspector of APSRTC. As such, the Checker knows the duties of a conductor very well and in fact, was superior in position and knowledge of the functions of the conductor. The object of the policy to rehabilitate the displaced employees is to see that the person to be absorbed is able to discharge his duties as such.

In view of the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner was fully aware of the functions of a conductor and had a practical knowledge of the same, but for the reason that he was not doing the job of a conductor, he did not apply for a licence. But, when the route was nationalised, he became unemployed and as such to eke-out his livelihood, he was prepared to even work as a conductor and then obtained conductor''s licence and on the date when he was to be considered for the post of conductor in APSRTC, in the rehabilitation scheme mentioned above, he was fully eligible to hold the post. In the circumstances, in accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and hold that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in the post of Conductor. The 1st respondent shall forthwith absorb the petitioner as conductor as he was displaced on account of the nationalisation of the bus route in which he was working. The petitioner shall produce before the 1st respondent his medical fitness certificate and soon after the presentation of the same, he shall be issued with posting orders.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.