- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C And Another v. S.P Satyanarayana .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent was working as a Cleaner with a private bus operator. After the relevant route was nationalised, he became a displaced employee. Under a policy adopted by the appellant-Corporation to absorb displaced employees (subject to eligibility), the respondent was permitted to take a technical test to determine eligibility for absorption. He failed the test and was not absorbed.
The respondent then requested the Corporation to conduct a retest and to absorb him as a Cleaner. When the request was not accepted, he filed Writ Petition No. 16818 of 1992 before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court allowed the writ petition on humanitarian grounds (lack of alternative employment and family responsibilities), and directed the Corporation to consider his case and pass an order within two months appointing him on a suitable post. The Corporation appealed against that order; leave was granted and the matter was heard.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court could direct the Corporation to appoint the respondent on a suitable post despite his failure in the eligibility test, in the absence of any challenge to the test, its validity, or the result, and without a pleaded case of arbitrariness or violation of Article 14.
- Whether the Corporation was obligated to provide the respondent a special retest merely because he sought one more opportunity for absorption.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant-Corporation's Arguments
- The High Court could not have issued a direction to appoint the respondent in the absence of any justification for such a mandate.
- The respondent had not alleged that the Corporation acted arbitrarily or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- The respondent neither challenged the validity of the test nor the result; he only sought a retest.
- The Corporation was under no obligation to hold a special test (retest) for the respondent.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted the Corporation's contention that the High Court's appointment direction lacked a sustainable legal basis. It emphasized that the respondent did not contend that the Corporation's decision was arbitrary or otherwise violative of Article 14. Further, the respondent had not challenged either the validity of the technical test or the outcome; his request was limited to seeking a retest—effectively a second chance to qualify for absorption.
On these facts, the Court held that the Corporation had no obligation to conduct a special test for the respondent, and that the High Court therefore should not have directed appointment to a suitable post despite the respondent having failed the test. However, taking note of the “special facts and circumstances,” the Court fashioned limited relief by directing that the respondent be given another opportunity to appear in a test to ascertain eligibility, rather than ordering direct appointment.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED; HIGH COURT ORDER SET ASIDE. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment directing appointment.
As a consequential direction based on special facts and circumstances, the Corporation must provide the respondent an opportunity to take another eligibility test within three months. If the respondent passes, the Corporation must appoint him as and when a vacancy becomes available. No costs were awarded. The opinion does not indicate that any new precedent was set; the direct effect is to replace the High Court’s appointment mandate with a retest opportunity conditioned on passing and future vacancy.
G.T Nanavati, J.— Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The respondent was earlier working as a Cleaner with a private bus operator. The said route was nationalised and, therefore, he became a displaced employee. Pursuant to the policy adopted by the appellant to absorb such displaced employees, subject to their eligibility, the respondent was also allowed to appear for a technical test to ascertain his eligibility. The respondent failed in that test and therefore he was not absorbed. He then made a representation to the appellant-Corporation to hold a retest for him and to absorb him as a Cleaner. As his representation was not accepted, he filed Writ Petition No. 16818 of 1992 in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh.
4. His writ petition was allowed by the High Court on the ground that he has no other alternative employment and has to maintain his old parents, wife and children and, therefore, he deserved to be absorbed and appointed by the Corporation. The Corporation was directed to consider the case of the respondent and to pass an order within two months, appointing him on a suitable post.
5. The Corporation is challenging the order passed by the High Court on the ground that in the absence of any justification, no such direction could have been given by the High Court to the Corporation. It was not the case of the respondent that the action of the Corporation was arbitrary or otherwise violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the Corporation deserves to be accepted. The respondent had not challenged the validity of the test or the result. In his representation made to the Corporation, he had merely asked for a retest. He wanted one more chance for being considered for absorption in the appellant's service. The appellant was under no obligation to hold a special test for him. In view of these facts and circumstances, the High Court should not have directed the Corporation to appoint the respondent on a suitable post even though he had failed in the test.
6. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court. But in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Corporation to give an opportunity to the respondent to appear again in a test to ascertain his eligibility. The appellant shall do so within a period of three months from today. If the respondent gets through the test, then the appellant shall appoint him as and when a vacancy becomes available.
7. No order as to costs.
Alert