Md. Imthiaz Vs. Managing Director, Apsrtc, Hyd. and Another

.....have taken voluntary retirement after completing 20 years of service while making appointments in corporation - preference is in violation of article 16 - no such rights hereditary rights can be created by way of succession. - all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to..........the corporation for 20 years under the impression that corporation will consider the case of the apepllant for the post of conductor in the light of the above circular. since the case of the appellant was not considered for appointment to the post of conductor, he preferred the writ petition, it was argued before the learned single judge that the father of the appellant-writ petitioner was retired from service voluntarily on medical grounds. but the learned judge found the same as factually incorrect. he observed that the appellant is not entitled to claim any post in the corporation since his father was not retired from service on medical grounds but opted to retire voluntarily under the 'voluntary retirement scheme'.3. be that as it is, the very concession, provided in the circular to the effect that the employee seeking voluntary retirement after serving about 20 years in the corporation creates a right in his children to be considered for appointment to the posts of conductors and cleaners in preference to other candidates, runs contrary to the very basic principle enshrined in the article 16 of the constitution providing equality of opportunity in matters of public employment to every citizen of india. succession provides no right to employment. writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to create a monopoly in favour of an employee once employed in the department. the argument that after he has served the department for twenty years he may retire voluntarily and thereafter his children be accommodated and on their retirement voluntarily their children be accommodated, in our considered view, cannot be accepted. we see no grounds to interfere in the order of the learned single judge. the writ appeal is dismissed. no costs.