1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

* * * *

W.P. No. 15757 of 2019

Between:

Smt.K.Sulochana

.....Petitioner

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

.....Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 03.05.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPR OVAL

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments ? Yes/No

2. Whether copies of Judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment ? Yes/No

_____________________________________

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J

2

* HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

+ W.P. No. 15757 of 2019

% 03.05.2024

Between:

# Smt.K.Sulochana

.....Petitioner

AND

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

.....Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.V.Raghuram

^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K.Narsi Reddy Standing

Counsel

< Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1. (2006) 4 SCC 322

2. (2014) 4 SCC 108

3. (2008) 12 SCC 481

3

APHC010324322019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

WRIT PETITION No: 15757/2019

Between:

Smt.K.Sulochana ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P V RAGHU RAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR TRANSPORT (AP)

2. K NARSI REDDY ( SC FOR APSRTC RAYALASEEMA )

3. N SRIHARI

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, seeking Mandamus, for the following relief:

“…to declare the action of the respondents in particular

respondent No.3 in not giving any appointment order to the writ

petitioner on par with one G.Anitha Rani who is working as

helper/shramik in the APSRTC Chittoor Depot No 2 though there

is an order from this Honourable Court to also appoint the writ

petitioner herein as Shramik vide notification No R3/ 68423/

2011HRDdt 23122011 issued by the Respondent no 1 as illegal

arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the

respondents herein to forthwith give appointment to the

petitioner as shramik/helper in any depots of Chittoor district by

considering her representations or else to give any suitable

appointment/posts in the Respondent Organisation………..”

4

2. The facts of the case, as projected in Writ Affidavit in brief,

are as follows:

a. Respondent/APSRTC, vide Proceedings No.R3/684 (23/ 2011-

HRD) dated 23.12.2011, called for applications from eligible persons for

the post of Shramik. Petitioner passed Class-X in 1999 and did ITI

Diesel Mechanic course from the Government ITI Chittoor, in 2003 and

did two years apprenticeship in Chittoor Depot. Petitioner and one Ms.

Anitha Rani applied to the post of Shramik, under the Notification in

2011, since Diesel Mechanic trade was sufficient to apply for the said

post. Respondent No.2 did not receive applications of the petitioner

and Ms.Anitha Rani on the ground that they were women and the said

post is not meant for women.

b. The case of the petitioner is that the notification is silent about the

fact that it is meant only for men. It is further stated that women can

perform any duty including the harsh and cumbersome duties.

Ventilating this grievance, petitioner and Ms. Anitha Rani filed W.P. No.

3348 of 2012 before the then Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

wherein an interim stay was granted. Since the order of the Court was

not implemented, a contempt case was filed. Vide a common order

dated 27.06.2013, W.P. was allowed, directing the respondent/APSRTC

to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Shramik.

c. As per the order of this Court, Ms.Anitha Rani was given

employment as Shramik and she joined as such in Mechanic Garage

5

Chittoor-II Depot, vide order dated 25.11.2013, and has also got

promotion, whereas, the case of the petitioner was not considered.

d. The petitioner made several representations to the respondent

authorities, but they did not consider the same. The Petitioner having

two children is not able to eke out livelihood and her husband is a

school bus driver. Therefore, petitioner filed the present W.P. seeking

indulgence of this Court for appointment as Shramik in respondent -

APSRTC.

e. Hence W.P.

3. The key averments stated in the counter affidavit filed by the

Respondent Nos., 2 and 3 are;

a. Petitioner and Ms. Anitha Rani are similarly placed persons, but

the Petitioner has not attended the medical examination though a letter

was addressed to her residential address.

b. Vide Circular No.PD-55/2010, dated 21.10.2010 and the

recruitment regulations for the post of Shramiks, the candidate should

possess minimum qualification of ITI with Diesel Mechanic Trade with

Class-VIII qualification. Vide Lr.No.R3/684(23)/2010-HRD, dated

02.11.2010 of the Chief Manager (HRD) referring to Circular

No.37/2003, dated 26.05.2003, it was communicated to not recruit

women candidates for the post of Shramiks by direct recruitment, in lieu

of the directions received from the Government. Therefore, female

candidates were not called for direct recruitment of Shramik post.

6

c. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Sri C. Somasekhar is a

Driver in APSRTC, Airport Depot, with Staff No.556522.

d. As per the orders of this Court, though a call letter was sent, the

petitioner did not attend the medical examination and therefore has not

participated in the selection process, as per the procedure laid down by

the Corporation. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to agitate that her

candidature was not considered.

e. It is also stated that W.A.No.1068/2014 which was preferred by

the APSRTC as against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.

No.3348/2012 was allowed. Therefore, there is no order in the favour of

the Petitioner.

f. After a lapse of several years, the petitioner once again filed the

W.P., which is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to

be dismissed.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri P.V. Raghuram, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

Sri K. Narsi Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the Respondent-

APSRTC. Perused the material on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what was

stated in the Petition, would submit that the petitioner and Ms.Anitha

Rani filed W.P.No.3348 of 2012 and obtained an order whereby a

direction was given to consider them for the post of Shramik. He would

submit that similarly placed person, Ms. Anitha Rani was given

7

appointment, whereas the representations submitted by the petitioner

were not considered.

6. Learned counsel during the course of arguments would submit

that against the final order passed in said W.P., respondent-Corporation

preferred W.A.No.1068 of 2014, which was allowed in favour of the

Respondent-Corporation holding that women are not to be appointed for

the post of Shramik, however a direction may be given to the

respondent/Corporation to place the petitioner in any other post.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-

Corporation would submit that the notification is of the year 2012 and

the petitioner and Ms. G. Anitha Rani preferred W.P.No.3348 of 2012

and obtained an interim direction and thereafter filed a contempt case. It

is fairly conceded that a learned Single Judge of this Court by a

common order dated 27.06.2013 directed the Respondent–Corporation

to consider the case of the petitioner and Ms. Anitha Rani for the post of

Shramik.

8. Learned Counsel stated that when the respondent corporation

called the Ms. Anitha Rani and petitioner for the implementation of the

common order dated 27.06.2013, Ms. Anitha Rani reported to the call,

and was given appointment, whereas, the petitioner did not turn up.

Learned Standing Counsel would further state that Petitioner submitted

representation after the disposal of the W.A.

8

9. Learned counsel further submits that when the petitioner did not

turn up to join the employment at the initial call, she has no vested right

to seek a relief to consider her case. It is also pointed out by the learned

Standing Counsel that in the order of W.A. dated 18.07.2014, a

reference is made that Petitioner herein, has not turned up and on

observing that Ms. Anita Rani has joined the duty by then, while

allowing the W.A., a direction was given to continue the services of her

on par with other incumbents in the cadre. Learned counsel would

argue that the petitioner had approached the Court with an inordinate

delay and having known about the order passed in the W.A., presented

representations to the Corporation, which have no merit. Hence he

prays for dismissal of the W.P.

Point for Determination

10. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel

appearing on both sides and on perusal of the material available on the

record, the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for her appointment as Shramik in

the respondent-Corporation?

Consideration by the Court

11. A keen perusal of the material placed on record would show that

the petitioner along with Ms. Anitha Rani filed W.P.No.3348 of 2012 and

sought a direction from the Court to consider their candidature for the

post of Shramik. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and Ms.Anitha

9

Rani did their ITI in Diesel mechanic branch, which is the educational

qualification required for the post of Shramik. The notification issued by

the respondent Corporation does not disclose that Shramik post is

meant for only men. The fact remains that the respondent-Corporation

obtained exemption from the Government by way of circular dated

26.05.2003, exempting women reservation for the post of Shramik,

Mechanic and charge-men by direct recruitment. Be that as it may, the

notification issued for the post of Shramik, does not indicate the same.In

that view of the matter, an interim order dated 09.02.2012 in

W.P.M.P.No.4186 of 2012 in W.P.No.3348 of 2012, was passed to

consider the case of the petitioner and Ms.Anitha Rani for the post of

Shramik. The operative portion of the said order reads thus;

“Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents -

APSRTC submits that the petitioners have not

challenged the notification and they ought to have

challenged the notification.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

though the notification envisages that candidates may

apply on or before 10.1.2012 and though the petitioners

have applied on 7.1.2012 their applications have not

been considered only on the ground that they are

women and the notification does not say that women are

not entitled to apply to the posts of Shramik.

In the above circumstances, there shall be interim

direction as prayed for.”

12. It is also on record that the petitioner and Anitha Rani approached

the Court again by filing a contempt application, vide C.C.No.243 of

10

2012 on the ground that the interim order passed by this Court are not

honoured by the respondent Corporation. A learned Single Judge of the

then Composite High Court passed a common order dated 27.06.2013

in W.P.No.3348 of 2012 and C.C.No.243 of 2012. For ready reference,

the penultimate paragraph of the said common order is extracted

hereunder:

“14. In view of passing of fresh orders in the writ petition,

the respondents are directed to implement the orders of

this Court within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt

of copy of this order. The proceedings in Contempt Case

are accordingly, closed. It is made clear that, if the orders

of this Court are not implemented, the petitioners are at

liberty to initiate fresh contempt proceedings.”

13. The respondent-Corporation in obedience to the orders passed in

the W.P. referred supra, issued appointment orders to the Ms.G.Anitha

Rani vide order dated 25.11.2013, wherein, it is mentioned that as

against two women candidates, only one candidate by name Anitha

Rani underwent medical examination and was found fit for the post of

Shramik. Accordingly, the appointment order was issued on 06.12.2013

in favour of the said Ms. G.Anitha Rani w.e.f. 28.11.2013.

14. The record would show that the petitioner herein submitted an

application on 05.08.2013 i.e., after the final order passed in

W.P.No.3348 of 2012 informing the respondent Corporation that she

obtained order from the High Court on 27.06.2013 and accordingly,

requested the authorities to provide employment to her. Initially the

11

petitioner, did not turn up to join in the post of Shramik, but she has

submitted another application on 31.10.2014 stating that she could not

join in the post since she was pregnant as on that date, and expressing

her readiness to join the post. It is relevant to state that there has been

no mention of her pregnancy in the previous representation dated

05.08.2013.

15. It is pertinent to mention that W.A.No.1068/2014 filed by the

Respondent-Corporation against the common order dated 27.06.2013,

was allowed by a Division Bench of the then Composite High Court,

vide order 18.07.2014. It is significant to state the Petitioner herein was

Respondent No.2 in the W.A. The Hon‟ble Division Bench while

reversing the common order observed that the exemption of women

candidates to the post of Shramik has a close nexus to the object

sought to be achieved and the same cannot be termed as unreasonable.

It is pertinent to refer to the penultimate paragraphs in the order dated

18.07.2014, which read thus;

“It is brought to our notice that despite the orders passed

in the writ petition, the 2nd respondent did not turn up and

the 1st respondent alone reported duty, and that she was

accommodated in a post other than „Shramik‟.

Hence, the writ appeal is allowed and the writ petition is

dismissed. However, by taking into account, the fact that

the 1st respondent has been appointed against another

post, we direct that the dismissal of the writ petition shall

not entail in her removal from service. She shall be

treated as having been appointed against such posts on

12

regular basis and shall be continued in the service on par

with other incumbents in the cadre.”

16. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted a representation on 09.02.2017.

A fair look at the contents of the representation would reveal that once

again the Petitioner while requesting the authorities to consider her

case, made reference of the order passed by the High Court in favour of

Ms. Anita Rani and her, and that she could not join the post since she

was pregnant then.

17. Out of the several factors that are determinative in nature while

exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, delay or

laches is an important one. It has been settled by precedents that

negligence or omissions on the part of the Petitioner to assert their

rights cannot be filled up while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.

Taking this proposition a little further, in Karnataka Power Corportion

Ltd. and another v. K. Thangappan and another,

1

the Hon‟ble Apex

Court observed as follows;

“7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in

Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd [(1874) 5

PC 221 : 22 WR 492] (PC at p. 239) was approved by this

Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher [AIR 1967 SC 1450]

and Maharashtra SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor

Service [(1969) 1 SCR 808 : AIR 1969 SC 329] . Sir Barnes

had stated:

“Now, the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an

arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be

1

(2006) 4 SCC 322

13

practically unjust to give a remedy either because the

party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be

regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his

conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not waiving

that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in

which it would not be reasonable to place him if the

remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of

these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material.

But in every case, if an founded upon mere delay, that

delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of

limitation, the validity of that defence must be tried upon

principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances

always important in such cases are, the length of the

delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval

which might affect either party and cause a balance of

justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other,

so far as it relates to the remedy.”

8. It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this

Court in which this aspect has been dealt with in relation to

Article 32 of the Constitution. It is apparent that what has

been stated as regards that article would apply, a fortiori, to

Article 226. It was observed in Rabindranath Bose v. Union

of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84 : AIR 1970 SC 470] that no relief

can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable

explanation approaches this Court under Article 32 after

inordinate delay. It was stated that though Article 32 is itself

a guaranteed right, it does not follow from this that it was the

intention of the Constitution-makers that this Court should

disregard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after

inordinate delay.”

(emphasis supplied)

14

18. No fixed time period of limitation for filing writ petitions. However

while preferring writ petitions seeking invocation of the extraordinary

jurisdiction of the writ courts, diligence should be shown in reasonable

time. What this reasonable time is, has not been codified or provided in

terms of days, as it depends on the facts and circumstances of each

case. Discretion of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article

226 has to be applied reasonably and judicially. Reiterating the doctrine

of delay and laches in writ petitions, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others

v. T.T. Murali Babu

2

observed as follows;

“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be

lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the

explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The

court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary

and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a

duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it

is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an

aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the

court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under

legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage

should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the

way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may

not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would

only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of

the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part

of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic

norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of

2

(2014) 4 SCC 108

15

time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and

rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and

causes injury to the lis. ”

(emphasis supplied)

19. On conglomeration of the facts and the circumstances of the case,

it is relevant to point out that the latest representation being dated

09.02.2017 was made almost after three years pursuant to the order

passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1068/2014, dated 18.07.2014,

whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge to consider the

case of the Petitioners therein was set aside. It is also not out of place

to mention that the Petitioner herein is Respondent No.2 in the W.A.

The present W.P. is filed in September of 2019. Viewed from any angle,

the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner cannot be excused at

this juncture.

20. Moreover, by virtue of the order passed in W.A.No.1068/2014,

dated 18.07.2014, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set

aside. It is surprising to note that no averment whatsoever has been

made in the writ affidavit concerning the Writ Appeal. On a mere glance

of the writ affidavit, any reasonable inference would be that even

pursuant to the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, the

petitioner herein was denied the post though Ms. Anitha Rani was

granted the said benefit. However, that is not the complete picture. The

fact of the filing and result of the W.A. are brought to the notice of the

court in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

16

21. Praying the relief based on an order of the learned Single Judge

in a Writ Petition, which was reversed by a Division Bench, to which the

Petitioner herein was a party, is a nothing but suppression of facts. A

writ remedy is an equitable remedy and a petitioner approaching the

writ court must come with clean hands without suppressing any material

fact, for the reason that this Court knows the law but not facts. The view

of this Court is fortified by the observations made by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court on this point in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of

India Limited and Others

3

, which reads thus;

“38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal

system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes

the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article

32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open.

He must disclose all material facts without any

reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be

allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose”

the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep

back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very

basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true

and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are

suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts

and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must

disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought

without any qualification. This is because “the court knows

law but not facts”

(emphasis supplied)

3

(2008)12 SCC 481

17

22. In that view of the matter, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court finds no merit in entertaining this

Writ Petition. Accordingly Point Answered as against the Petitioner.

23. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

03.05.2024

Mjl/*

L.R. copy to be marked

18

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

WRIT PETITION No. 15757 of 2019

03.05.2024

Mjl/*