Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 705 (AP)

C. Ramesh v. A. P. S. R. T. C.

2000-09-13

GHULAM MOHAMMED, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA

body2000
N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment passed in w. P. No. 14809 of 2000 dated 10th August, 2000 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, this present writ appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner appellant herein. ( 2 ) THE facts that lead to the filing of the writ petition are that during the selections held in September, 1988 for the posts of driver in the A. P. S. R. T. C. , writ petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Driver and he was sent to training also. He also completed the training within the stipulated period. While so, he received a notice dated 4-4-2000 from the third respondent informing that the licence (sic. ). Aggrieved by the action of the Corporation, the petitioner filed the above writ petition. The learned Single Judge having considered all the aspects minutely, did not find any merits in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner-appellant herein preferred the above appeal. ( 3 ) ( 4 ) WE have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge wherein it is held thus:"in my considered opinion, the decision of the third respondent herein does not suffer from any legal infirmity, merely because the petitioner has been selected by the selection Committee and empanelled for appointment itself would not confer any right for appointment as such. The respondent-Corporation is entitled to verify the genuineness of the driving licence made available by the petitioner. Necessary steps were accordingly taken by the Corporation to verify the driving licence of the petitioner. Accordingly the fourth respondent was finally addressed by the respondent-Corporation to which the fourth respondent submitted his report stating that no such licence no. 286/rh/89 was issued to the petitioner by the officers of the fourth respondent. It appears that the petitioner approached the fourth respondent and got some favourable endorsement. In the circumstances, the third respondent rightly entertained a doubt as to the genuineness of the subsequent endorsement dated 17-4-2000 made by the fourth respondent, xxxxxxx for all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same shall stand accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, the third respondent rightly entertained a doubt as to the genuineness of the subsequent endorsement dated 17-4-2000 made by the fourth respondent, xxxxxxx for all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same shall stand accordingly dismissed. " ( 5 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which is on sound reasoning minutely, does not warrant any interference and as such, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be confirmed.