Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 650 (AP)

K. Ramesh Babu v. AAPSRTC. , HYDERABAD

2000-08-25

D.S.R.VERMA

body2000
D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring that (A) the action of the respondents in relieving the petitioner from the post of Tracer vide orders dated 29-5-2000 and to be posted as conductor is arbitrary and illegal; (B) that the petitioner is liable to be treated and retained as Tracer on regular basis in the Civil engineering Department, Nellore division, APSRTC; (C) retain the petitioner in the Civil engineering Department, Nellore division, APSRTC; ( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the petitioner is a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering. He was initially appointed as NMR in the year 1988 and his services were regularised in the respondent-Corporation with effect from 18-6-1990. Pursuant to the regularisation he joined duty on 3-8-1994 as conductor and on the very next day i. e. , 4-8-1994 he was posted on deputation in civil Engineering Department and has been discharging his duties as a Tracer on out of designation basis. While so, the respondents issued proceedings dated 29-5-2000 whereby the petitioner was relieved from the duties of Tracer with a direction to report to the duties in which they were initially posted i. e. , Conductor. Aggrieved By the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) IT is clear from the facts that the petitioner was originally appointed as conductor on regular basis, but because of some departmental exigencies the petitioner was asked to perform the duties of a Tracer. In other words, the substantive post in which the petitioner was appointed and holding is Conductor. Just because the petitioner was asked to discharge the duties of a Tracer continuously from the next date of his regularisation as Conductor, he has no vested right to continue in the same post. Admittedly, the petitioner has been drawing the same pay scales applicable to that of a Conductor, but not a Tracer and it is also not disputed that the petitioner was asked to perform out of designation of duties like Tracer. Therefore, the submissions on behalf of the petitioner are not acceptable. Admittedly, the petitioner has been drawing the same pay scales applicable to that of a Conductor, but not a Tracer and it is also not disputed that the petitioner was asked to perform out of designation of duties like Tracer. Therefore, the submissions on behalf of the petitioner are not acceptable. ( 4 ) IT is brought to my notice a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in writ Appeal No. 1257 of 1999 dated 6-3-2000 in K. S. Balanagaraja vs. The Depot manager, Venkatagiri Depot, APSRTC, nellore wherein in similar circumstances, the Division Bench held that since the petitioner was not promoted by a regular order of promotion, the mere fact that the petitioner was continuously working in a different capacity, does not confer any right. He was discharging the duties in a different capacity other than the one to which he was actually selected. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, in view of the long service rendered by the petitioner in the capacity of tracer, I direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to continue him in the post of Tracer in future vacancies. ( 6 ) WITH the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ( 7 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs.