C. Ramesh Vs. Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Others

C. Ramesh vs Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Nov 13, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/426214

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/426214
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: N.Y. Hanumanthappa, ACJ and; Ghulam Mohammed, J.
Decided On: Nov 13, 2000
Case Number: WP No. 1165 of 2000
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - right to post - petitioner selected as driver in Transport Corporation by selection committee - training imparted to him - on verification his license not found to be valid - appointment denied - mere selection does not create any right to post - held, writ petition dismissed. -

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C. Ramesh

Advocate Mr. V. Jogapathi, Adv.

Respondent

Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Others

Advocate Mr. A.V. Sivaiah, SC for APSRTC

Legal References

Reported In: 2001(1)ALD407; 2001(1)ALT137

Excerpt

service - right to post - petitioner selected as driver in transport corporation by selection committee - training imparted to him - on verification his license not found to be valid - appointment denied - mere selection does not create any right to post - held, writ petition dismissed. - .....acj1. aggrieved by the judgment passed in wp 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 selectionsheld in september, 1988 for the posts of driver in the apsrtc, 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 license (sic 'is found not genunine'). aggrieved by the action 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. heard.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 license made available by the petitioner. necessary steps were accordingly taken by the corporation to verify the driving license 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 license no:286/rh/1989 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.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, ACJ

1. Aggrieved by the judgment passed in WP 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 selectionsheld in September, 1988 for the posts of Driver in the APSRTC, 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 license (sic 'is found not genunine'). Aggrieved by the action 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. Heard.

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 license made available by the petitioner. Necessary steps were accordingly taken by the Corporation to verify the driving license 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 license No:286/RH/1989 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 thegenuineness of the subsequent endorsement dated 17-4-2000 made by the fourth respondent.

X X X X X.

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.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties C. Ramesh vs Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Others Same Subject Service Same Judge N.Y. Hanumanthappa, ACJ and; Ghulam Mohammed, J.

Service