APHC010576402023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3328]

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA

PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO: 29813/2023

Between:

1. M R L SWAMY, S/O. VENKATESHWARARAO AGED. 54 OCC.

CONDUCTOR, APSRTC, KAKINADA DEPOT R/O. D.NO. 44 -9-10,

PEMMADAVARI STREET, PARADESAMMAPETA,

JAGANNAICKPUR, KAKINADA -2 ANDHRA PRADESH

2. G.S.NARAYANA, S/O. MOSENU AGED .57 OCC - CONDUCTOR,

APSRTC, KAKINADA DEPOT R/O. D.NO.4 -1, CHAKKAVARIPETA,

NELAPALLI ANDHRA PRADESH - 533464

3. SK.M.A.PASHA, S/O. SK ABDUL KHADAR (LATE) AGED - 57 OCC-

CONDUCTOR, APSRTC, KAKINADA DEPOT R/O. D.NO.16 -33-48,

SAMBAMURTHY NAGAR, 1ST ST. PRAKRUTHI APARTMENT. F-

208, KAKINADA-I, ANDHRA PRADESH

4. P.R.KRISHNA, S/O. VEERRAJU AGED - 60 OCC- CONDUCTOR,

APSRTC, KAKINADA DEPOT R/O. SIRISHA SRINILAYAM, SRIRAM

NAGAR. NEAR RLY.STATION KAKINADA - 3 ANDHRA PRADESH.

5. P.V.B.RAO, S/O. SUBBARAO AGED . 53 OCC- CONDUCTOR,

APSRTC, KAKINADA DEPOT R/O. D.N0.5 -2-8G, SITAYYAGARI

THOTA, VIDYUTNAGAR, PITHAPURAM, KAKINDA DISTRICT

ANDHRA PRADESH

6. K.S.BHAGAVAN, S/O. PRAKASARAO AGED.54 OCC -

CONDUCTOR, APSRTC, KAKINADA DEPOT R/O. 3 -15/1, SSS

COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA - 521225 , ANDHRA

PRADESH.

2

7. B.V.D. PRASAD, S/O. VEERANNA AGED. 56 OCC - CONDUCTOR,

APSRTC, KAKINADA DEPOT R/O. D.NO.2 -113 RAMADASU

STREET, OLD VIJAYA BANK OPPOSITE, KARAPA, ANDHRA

PRADESH

8. CH.S.N.MURTHY, S/O. PEDA APPARAO, AGED . 58 YEARS R/O.

D.NO. 3-402/20 PULAMARKET CENTRE SARPAVARAM, KAKINDA,

ANDHRA PRADESH - 533005

9. K.CH. BABJI,, S/O. VEERRAJU AGED. 54 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1 -3-

61, SURAVARAPUVARI STREET, AGRAHARAM, PITHAPURAM,

ANDHRA PRADESH

10. G.S.RAO, S/O. AHBULU AGED. 58 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.4-20/16F,

NEAR UMA MANO, VIKAS KENDRAM, TOWER ROAD,

VAKALAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH

11. K.SIVA KUMAR, S/O. AGED - 54 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 5-12-32,

BATTAI THOTA KANISTA APARTMENT, TUNI, ANDHRA PRADESH

12. G.B.V.RAJU,, S/O. VENKATARAO AG ED . 55 YEARS, D.NO.3-24-

27, MARKENDEYARAJU PETA, TUNI ANDHRA PRADESH

13. R.S.NARAYANA,, S/O. NAGAYYA AGED . 55 YEARS RIO. D.NO. 1 -

49, A KOTHAPALLI, S.0 PETA, THONDANGI -533408, ANDHRA

PRADESH

14. S.S.RAO,, S/O. SATYAM AGED . 56 R/O. D.NO. 5-22-15 MUSLIM

VEEDHI NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE TUNI, ANDHRA

PRADESH

15. S.GANGO RAO, S/O. APPANNA AGED. 55 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3 -28-

9/1, MARKENDEYARAJU PETA LIC BACKSIDE, TUNI, ANDHRA

PRADESH

16. D.M. RAO, S/O. SANYASIRAO AGED. 61 YEARS, D.NO.3 -163

TARAKARAMA COLONY, VELANGI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533260

17. S.CH.VENKATESWARLU, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED. 53

YEARS D.NO. 7 -1-5/5 VUNUPULAVARI ST.

RAMACHANDRAPURAM - 533255

18. S ALMAN HUSSAIN, S/O. MD. IBRAHIM, AGED. 50 YEARS R/O.

D.NO. 1-100 AGAVARI STREE T, VELAMPALEM DRAKSHARAMA

3

ANDHRA PRADESH -533262

19. K. S .V.P.RAO, S/O. SATYA GANAPATHI RAO, AGED. 59 YEARS

RIO. D.NO. 10-1-51(B), MOBARLIVARI PETA, AMALAPURA, DR.

B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH -533202

20. K.V.RAMARAO, S/O. KONDALARAO AGED . 54 YRS, D.NO. 2-42

KOTTA MERAKA PASALLAPALLI, MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL,

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIST. ANDHRA PRADESH -

533247

21. P.J.BABU, S/O. CHITTAYYA, AGED. 57 YRS RIO. D.NO. 1 -100,

NUNNAVARI STREET, DRAKSHARAMA, KONASEEMA DT.

ANDHRA PRADESH

22. K.MANIKYAM, S/O. VENKATARAO, AGED. 54YRS R/O. D.NO. 7 -

573, RAMA NILAYAM VENKATARATNA THEATRE VEEDHI,

JAGGAMSPETA - 533435

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

CORPORATION, (A.P.S.R.T.C), REPRESENTED BY VICE

CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC, AMARAVATHI,

ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, APSRTC, ERSTWHILE

EAST GODAVARI REGION RAJAHMUNDRY, ANDHRA PRADESH

3. REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST

GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, APPTD(APSRTC), DR.

B..R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIST AMALAPURAM, ANDHRA

PRADESH

5. DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, APPTD(APSRTC),

KAKINADA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH

6. K M M RAJU, CONDUCTOR RAJAHMUNDRY DEPOT, STAFF NO.

270829 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

7. B V LAKSHMI, CONDUCTOR RAZOLU DEPOT, STAFF NO.600422

4

APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

8. M V RAO, CONDUCTOR RAMACHANDRAPURAM DEPOT, STAFF

NO.600045 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

9. P SHIVAJI CHOWDARY, CONDUCTOR RAJAHMUNDRY DEPOT,

STAFF NO.600041 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

10. J RAJA BABU, CONDUCTOR AMALAPURAM DEPOT, STAFF

NO.490067 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

11. S S S L N RAO, CONDUCTOR RAJAHMUNDRY DEPOT, STAFF

NO.357187 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

12. P A RAJU, CONDUCTOR TUNI DEPOT, STAFF NO.490088

APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

13. M PADMA, CONDUCTOR ELESHWARAM DEPOT, STAFF

NO.600634 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

14. K S BABU, CONDUCTOR RAMACHANDRAPURAM DEPOT, STAFF

NO.490113 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

15. B SRINIVASA RAO, CONDUCTOR RAJAHMUNDRY DEPOT, STAFF

NO.496014 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

16. Y S BHARATI, CONDUCTOR RAJAHMUNDRY DEPOT, STAFF NO.

490090 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

17. P K V KUMAR, CONDUCTOR GOKAVARRN DEPOT, STAFF

NO.496020 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

18. B A RAO, CONDUCTOR KAKINADA DEPOT, STAFF NO. 490092

APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

19. M N RAO, CONDUCTOR KAKINADA DEPOT, STAFF NO. 490093

APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

20. P H REDDY, CONDUCTOR RAMACHANDRAPURAM DEPOT,

STAFF NO.496019 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

21. K RAVI, CONDUCTOR ELESHWARAM DEPOT, STAFF NO. 490094

APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

22. P RAMBABU, CONDUCTOR AMALAPURAM DEPOT, STAFF NO.

496030 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

5

23. V BHASKARA RAO, CONDUCTOR RAJAHMUNDRY DEPOT, STAFF

NO.490097 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADE SH

24. A K MURTHY, CONDUCTOR TUNI DEPOT, STAFF NO.490098

APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

25. CH V MURTHY, CONDUCTOR RAMACHANDRAPURAM DEPOT,

STAFF NO.496024 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH.

26. A BHUJANGA RAO, CONDUCTOR AMALAPURAM DEPOT, STAFF

NO.496027 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

27. S V MANIKYA, CONDUCTOR RAVULAPALEM DEPOT, STAFF

NO.600477 APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

28. J G RAO, CONDUCTOR KAKINADA DEPOT, STAFF NO. 490101

APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

29. V V B RAO, CONDUCTOR DPTO -EG DEPOT, STAFF NO.496029

APSRTC, ANDHRA PRADESH

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. T S VENKATARAMANA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

The Court made the following ORDER:

Heard Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the Writ

Petitioners (appearing through video conference) and Sri Y. Phani Babu,

leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned

Standing Counsel for APSRTC.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed by the 22 Writ Petitioners against the

Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 29 challenging their promotion from

Conductors Grade-II to Conductor Grade-I. Relief sought in the present Writ

Petition is as under :

6

“……to issue Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly in the nature of

Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned proceedings

No.E1/255(02)/2023-DPTO/AMP, dt.15.05.2023 issued by Respondent

No.2 by promoting Respondents Nos.6 to 29 as Grade-I conductors is

illegal, arbitrary, void and against to principles of natural justice and

contrary to law and consequentially direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to

promote the petitioners as Grade-I conductors and pass such other or

further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of

the case.”

3. Vide Order dated 17.11.2023, this Court had issued notice to the

Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 29 and had also stated that the promotions

effected on Respondent Nos.6 to 29 shall be subject to the Final Orders of this

Court. Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has

filed a Memo on 11.12.2023 as regards the status of service on the Unofficial

Respondent Nos.6 to 29. The Memo would indicate that the notice has been

served on Respondent Nos.6 to 9, 11, 14 to 19, 22, 23, 25 & 27 to 29. In

respect of Respondent No.10, the Memo would indicate that he has refused to

accept the notice, which is treated by this Court as deemed service. In

respect of Respondent No.12, 16, 20, 21, 24 & 26, the notices were returned

on account of insufficient address. Despite notice being served on majority of

the Unofficial Respondents, none have entered appearance nor have they

filed their Counter Affidavits. Hence, they are set exparte.

3.1 Despite service of notice to the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 29,

they have not evinced any interest in either entering appearance in-person or

through the Counsel.

Submissions of the Writ Petitioners :

4. Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners

would submit that on 31.12.2019, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has

issued the G.O.M.S.No.52 Transport, R & B (TR-II), Dept; that Act No.36 of

2019 (The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Absorption of

Employees into Government Service)) was also promulgated with effect from

01.01.2020 that the Act No.36 of 2019, the Government of Andhra Pradesh

7

has created Public Transport Department and merged the Andhra Pradesh

Road Transport Department (for short the „APSRTC‟) with Public Transport

Department (PTD); that on 01.04.2022, the Government issued Proceedings

addressed to the Managing Director of APSRTC stating that the staff of

APSRTC shall be treated as Government Employees and erstwhile staff of

APSRTC (who have now become the employees of Government of A.P) shall

be governed by the A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short

the „Rules, 1996‟); that, therefore, there is no manner of any doubt that by the

Act No.36 of 2019 (The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

(Absorption of Employees into Government Service)), they have become the

employees under the State Service and that all such employees are governed

by the Rules, 1996.

4.1. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would further submit that

the Government has not issued any Notification indicating the Zones and

Areas for the purpose of Administration, Seniority and for determination of

Local Status. He would further submit that, while so, the Respondent No.3

namely the Regional Manager, APSRTC had issued a direction to all Depo

Managers calling for personal files of erstwhile East Godavari Region as per

the schedule given in the Proceeding for upgradation/promotion of

Conductors, Drivers and Mechanics from Grade-II to Grade-I; that accordingly,

the records relating to 96 persons have been forwarded; that these details are

sent from Kakinada Division; and that the names of the Writ Petitioners would

reflect in the list from Sl.No.25 to Sl.No.72 (Ex.P.1).

4.2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that, vide

Proceeding dated 15.05.2023 issued by the District Public Transport Officer,

erstwhile East Godavari Region, Rajahmundry, about 18 persons were

promoted and the Writ Petitioners have no grievance with regard to the

promotion of these 18 persons (Ex.P.3), as the said persons are all Seniors to

the Writ Petitioners herein. He would submit that, strangely, the District Public

Transport Officer (Respondent No.2) on the same date i.e., on 15.05.2023

8

had issued another list of 24 candidates, thereby promoting them as

Conductors Grade-I from Conductors Grade-II (Ex.P.2). Both Exs.P.2 and P.3

dated 15.05.2023 are the lists which have been issued basing on the

Proceeding of the Selection Committee dated 12.05.2023.

4.3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would contend that these

24 persons who have been promoted from Conductors Grade-II to Grade-I,

vide Proceeding dated 15.05.2023 (Ex.P.2) are Juniors to the Writ Petitioners

except the Respondent Nos.6, 10 and 11. In the light of above facts, Sri T.S.

Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has raised the

following contentions:

i) That the names of the Conductors who have been promoted from

Grade-II to Grade-I, vide Proceeding dated 15.05.2023 (Ex.P.2)

did not initially figure in the initial list that was communicated by

the Regional Manager calling for service records vide proceeding

dated 29.04.2023 (Ex.P.1).

ii) That these 24 persons (except the Respondent Nos.6, 10 and 11)

are Juniors to the Writ Petitioners, inasmuch as the Writ

Petitioners were all appointed in the years 1990, 1993 & 1994.

iii) The Selection Committee Proceeding did not see the light of the

day nor was the information furnished to anyone as regards the

constitution of Selection Committee and its dates of sitting.

iv) When once the Act No.36 of 2019 had come into effect from

01.01.2020 and the Government issued Proceeding to the

Managing Director of APSRTC on 01.04.2022, the staff of the

APSRTC are treated as Government Staff, and the Respondent

Officials are duty bound to follow the statutory procedure as laid

down in the Rules, 1996.

v) That Rule 24 of the Rules, 1996 has laid down the procedure for

constitution of Selection Committee/Promotion Committee,

Publication of Provisional List, calling for Objections as regards

9

the Seniority from the Provisional List, issuance of Final Orders

after considering the objections and the final Publication of

Seniority List have been given a complete go-by by the Official

Respondents with a view to favour certain persons that

consequently led them to discriminating the Writ Petitioners.

vi) Rule 26 of the Rules, 1996 has also not been followed in this

case.

vii) That the Respondents did not follow the procedure as

contemplated under Rule 33 (a) of the Rules, 1996 for the

purpose of fixing Seniority.

viii) That the Respondents have not followed the procedure as

contemplated under Rule 34 of the Rules, 1996 for preparation of

integrated or common seniority of persons belonging to different

units of appointment.

4.4. By pointing out the defects, the learned Counsel for the Writ

Petitioners would submit that the entire Proceedings get vitiated due to

statutory violations which are substantive and are serious in nature. He would

submit that the Official Respondents have resorted to such infraction of

Statutory Rules with a malicious design to favour certain persons. He would

also submit that malafides on the part of the Official Respondents can be

assumed straight away due to blatant and deliberate violation of the Statute.

He would therefore urge the Court to set aside the entire Proceedings for the

reasons indicated above.

5. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC

appearing for Official Respondent Nos.1 to 5 has filed two Counter Affidavits

dated 08.12.2023 & 04.01.2024. Sri Y. Phani Babu, leaned Counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for

APSRTC would submit that the total sanctioned posts of Conductor Grade-I is

104 in number. Out of them, 60 posts are earmarked for Rajahmundry

Division and 44 posts are earmarked for Kakinada Division. He would submit

10

that out of 60 posts of Rajahmundry Division for Conductor Grade-I, there are

only 36 Conductors of Grade-I on rolls. Therefore 24 vacancies were sought

to be filled by effecting promotions from Conductors Grade-II in the erstwhile

Rajahmundry Division. It is further submitted that out of 44 sanctioned posts

for Conductors Grade-I in Kakinada Division, 25 Conductors Grade-I were on

rolls and 19 vacancies were to be filled in the erstwhile Kakinada Division.

5.1. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioners herein belong to the

erstwhile Kakinada Division and are the junior most than the 19 candidates

selected in the Kakinada Division, which is the reason why the candidature of

the Writ Petitioners was not considered in the present selection of Conductors

Grade-I promotions. It is further submitted that Divisional Seniority in respect

of Kakinada and Rajahmundry Divisions has been fixed basing on the options

given by the employees appointed in the erstwhile East Godavari Division,

which is covered by the Depos of Amalapuram, Gokavaram, Rajahmundry,

Ravulapalem, Razole, Eleshwaram, Kakinada, Ramachandrapuram and Tuni.

It is further submitted that after 15.11.1994, the candidates who were

appointed after the merger of all the Divisions in East Godavari Division, a

single Regional Seniority List is maintained in the East Godavari Region.

5.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of learned Standing Counsel

for APSRTC has also drawn the attention of this Court to the documents

which are annexed to the Counter Affidavit dated 04.01.2024. He would refer

to two Circulars dated 22.04.1997 & 22.09.1997 and would submit that the

said Circulars would contemplate maintaining of erstwhile Division Seniority in

the posts of Drivers/Conductors/Cleaners/Mechanics and Artisans for the

purpose of promotions till all those employees who were working in the above

posts as on 14.11.1994 i.e., the date of issue of Circular abolishing Divisional

set-up are promoted or ceased to be in service. The said Circular would also

indicate that the Seniority of those employees who are recruited after

14.11.1994 in the categories specified above in the seven Regions shall be

11

maintained as integrated Regional Seniority in terms of Circular No.PD0147-

94, dated 23.12.1994.

5.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of learned Standing Counsel

for APSRTC has referred to Circular dated 22.09.1997 bearing Circular

No.PD-65/1997 and would submit that insofar as the transfer of employees

are concerned including Drivers/Conductors/Cleaners/Mechanics and

Artisans, seven Regions shall be treated as seven Units since they have

become Regional Seniority posts. However, the said Circular would indicate

that insofar as the promotions are concerned, the Official Respondents shall

follow the Divisional Seniority. Having made the said submissions, learned

Standing Counsel for APSRTC would justify the impugned action of the

Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in promoting the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 29 as

Conductors Grade-I from Grade-II.

Rejoinder of the Writ Petitioners:

6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, in his Rejoinder, has

submitted Synopsis and list of dates to address the history of the APSRTC,

which eventually got merged into Public Transport Department under Act

No.36 of 2019. He would submit that prior to 15.11.1994, the APSRTC was

divided into various Divisions for administrative purpose, for transfers and for

promotions; that each Division was given a particular sanctioned strength of

employees under various services; that the Kakinada Division and

Rajahmundry Division which were in existence prior to 15.11.1994 came to be

merged into what is called the East Godavari Region. Prior to the merger,

Kakinada Division had the following Depos: 1) Kakinada, Tuni,

Ramachandrapuram and Eleshwaram Depos; that the Rajahmundry Division

had Rajahmundry, Amalapuram, Ravulapalem, Razole and Gokavaram

Depos; that as stated earlier, vide Proceeding dated 14.11.1994, from

15.11.1994 onwards, East Godavari Region came into existence along with

six other Regions in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.

12

7. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the

Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide Act 36 of 2019 had brought into

existence the enactment called the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Corporation (Absorption of Employees into Government Service) Act, 2019

(Act No. 36 of 2019). Act No.36 of 2019 was published in the Official Gazette

of the Andhra Pradesh on 27.12.2019. Relevant provisions of the Act 36 of

2019 are extracted hereunder:

“3. Absorption of APSRTC Employees - Notwithstanding anything to the

contrary contained in "The Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Absorption of

Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings Into Public

Service Act, 1997" (Act.No.14 of 1997), on and from the date of

commencement of this Act, all the employees of the APSRTC shall stand

absorbed into Government service into such department, as may be

notified by the Government.

4. Application of Rules - Save as otherwise provided for by the

government, by notification specifically applicable to the absorbed

employees of APSRTC, all the rules made by or under any law for the

time being in force applicable to the State Government employees shall

be applicable to the employees of the APSRTC absorbed into government

service by virtue of this Act.

5. Regulation of Service Conditions - It shall be competent for the

Government to frame such rules to regulate the service conditions of the

absorbed employees of APSRTC, and the same shall bind on the

absorbed employees.”

8. He would submit that Section 3 of the Act No.36 of 2019 would

clearly stipulate that all the employees of the APSRTC shall stand absorbed

into Government service into such Department, as may be notified by the

Government. Section 4 of the Act No.36 of 2019 would contemplate that the

absorbed employees of APSRTC are governed by the same set of Rules and

Regulations as are applicable to the State Government employees.

9. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that after

bringing into force of Act No.36 of 2019, erstwhile East Godavari Region and

Divisions of various districts was restricted to include Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Konaseema District along with Kakinada District and East Godavari District.

13

Analysis:

10. Facts which are not in dispute are that under the APSRTC, prior to

15.11.1994, there exists various Divisions on or about 15.11.1994, due to

administrative exigencies, the then Government had done away the divisional

system and had introduced various Regions. The whole erstwhile State of

Andhra Pradesh was divided into seven Regions. One of the seven Regions,

East Godavari Region was formed in the year 1995, which included the

erstwhile Kakinada Division and Rajahmundry Division; that insofar as

administering of promotions are concerned, the Government had issued

Circulars dated 22.04.1997 and 22.09.1997. The said Circulars would

contemplate that insofar as the promotions are concerned, the Division shall

be treated as Unit. The other admitted facts are to the effect that the

Government of Andhra Pradesh has enacted Act No.36 of 2019, there by

absorbing the employees of the APSRTC into Government Service. The

provisions of the said Act would indicate that the law governing the service

conditions of the Government employees of the State of Andhra Pradesh shall

be made applicable even for the merged employees from APSRTC.

11. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that since the Act No.36 of 2019

had clearly contemplated that the Rules governing the State Government

employees shall govern the merged employees of the APSRTC for effecting

promotions also the same rules ought to have been followed or applied.

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that since the State

Government employees are governed by the Rules, 1996, the same Rules

shall be made applicable for effecting promotions to the employees of the

APSRTC as well.

12. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of

this Court to the procedure contemplated under Rules 24, 26, 33 & 34 of the

Rules, 1996, which are usefully extracted hereunder:

14

“24. REVISION OF LISTS OF APPROVED CANDIDATES (PANELS) OR

LIST OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT BY

PROMOTION OR BY TRANSFER: -

(a) The State Government shall have the power to revise in any manner

they consider suitable, any panel of approved candidates for appointment

by transfer or by promotion to any category class or service, prepared by

a Head of the department or any other authority subordinate to the Head

of the Department, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by the

special rules or these rules:

Provided that before revision of the panel is undertaken the cases

for review should be placed before the D.P.C / Review D.P.C / Screening

Committee and their recommendations obtained:

Provided that where the panel is prepared by an authority

subordinate to a Head of the Department, in exercise of the powers

conferred on him by the special rules, the aforesaid power of revision may

be exercised by the Head of the Department. This will not preclude the

State Government from exercising the powers of the revision aforesaid,

against the orders either of the Head of the Department or of any other

subordinate authority aforesaid.

(b) The State Government and the Head of the Department shall have

power to revise in any manner they consider suitable, any list of eligible

candidates for promotion to any category, class or service in respect of

the subordinate service, prepared in accordance with Rule-5. The

aforesaid power of revision by the State Government could be exercised

by them in respect of an order passed by the Head of the Department or

by any other subordinate authority.

(c) The aforesaid power or revision mentioned in sub-rule (a) and sub-rule

(b), may be exercised by the State Government or by the Head of the

Department on their own motion, at any time, or on an application made

by the aggrieved person, within a period of six months from the date of

the order of appointment or promotion of a person junior to the aggrieved

person:

Provided that the time limit of six months aforesaid may, for good and

sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, be waived by the State

Government.

Provided further where the panel referred to in sub-rule (a) has been

partially utilised, any order of revision likely to affect a person who has

already been appointed from such panel, shall be given an opportunity of

making his representation against the proposed revision, before any order

of revision is passed;

Provided also that if any revision of list of eligible candidates mentioned in

subrule (b) is likely to affect a person already promoted from the aforesaid

15

list of eligible candidates, he shall be given an opportunity of making a

representation against the proposed revision before any order of revision

is passed:

Provided also that where a panel has been prepared on the basis of the

recommendations made by a DPC / Screening Committee any revision of

such panel shall be made only after consultation with such D.P.C /

Screening Committee.

26. APPEAL AGAINST SENIORITY OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF

SERVICE:- (a) Except where other-wise provided in these or the special

rules, an appeal shall lie against an order fixing the seniority of a person

or affecting any conditions of service, passed by the appointing authority,

to the authority to whom an appeal would lie against an order of dismissal

passed against the member of the service, class or category..

(b) The powers in sub-rule (a) shall be exercised by the Head of the

Department, if he is not the appellate authority, or by the State

Government on its own motion, or on an appeal received by the Head of

the Department or the State Government, as the case may be.

(c) The appellate authority, if it is not the Head of the Department or the

Government shall dispose of such appeal within a maximum period of one

year. If the appeal has not been disposed of within the aforesaid period,

the Head of Department or the State Government may intervene in the

matter, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing and take such

action as may be considered necessary by them in the matter.

(d) No appeal for restoration of seniority or assignment of notional

seniority on par with his Junior shall be entertained by the appellate

authority after a period of 90 days from the date on which junior was

promoted.

(e) A Member of service may submit a revision petition against the order

of the Appellate Authority, within three months of the orders passed by the

Appellate Authority, to the Government.].

(G.O.Ms.No.76, GA (Ser.D), Dept., Dt.11.03.2003)

33. SENIORITY:- (a) The seniority of a person in a service, class,

category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a

punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such

service, class, category or grade.

Provided that the seniority of a probationer or approved probationer in a

service, class or category from which he stood reverted on the 1st

November, 1956 or prior to that date, shall be determined in the statewide

gazetted posts and non-gazetted posts in the Departments of the

Secretariat and the offices of the Heads of Departments with reference to

the notional date of continuous officiation with or without breaks in that

service, class or category prior to the 1st November, 1956 to the date of

re-appointment made thereafter, but it shall not disturb inter-seniority

16

which obtained in the Andhra State. (This proviso shall be in force till

31

st

October, 1996).

(b) The appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order

appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for

the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any

other reason the order of preference among them; and where such order

has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it;

Provided further that the order of merit or order of preference indicated in

a list of selected candidates prepared by the Public Service Commission

or other selecting authority, shall not be disturbed inter-se with reference

to the candidates position in such list or panel while determining the

seniority in accordance with this rule and notional dates of

commencement of probation to the extent necessary, shall be assigned to

the persons concerned, with reference to the order of merit or order of

preference assigned to them in the said list.

(c) Whenever notional date of promotion is assigned, such date of

notional promotion shall be taken into consideration for computing the

qualifying length of service in the feeder category for promotion to the

next higher category and that the notional service shall be counted for the

purpose of declaration of probation also in the feeder category.

(d) The transfer of a person from one class or category of a service to

another class or category of the same service, carrying the same pay of

scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter class or

category for purpose of seniority and the seniority of a person so

transferred shall be determined with reference to the date of his regular

appointment in the class or category from which he was transferred.

Where any difficulty arises in applying this sub-rule, seniority shall be

determined by the Government, if they are the appointing authority and in

other cases, the authority next higher to the appointing authority shall

determine the seniority.

(e) Where a member of a service, class or category is reduced for a

specific period, to a lower service, class or category or grade:-

(i) in cases where the reduction does not operate to postpone future

increment, the seniority of such member on re-promotion shall, unless the

terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise, be fixed in the higher

service, class or category at which it would have been fixed but for his

reduction.

(ii) in cases where the reduction operates to postpone future increment,

the seniority of such member on re-promotion shall, unless the terms of

the order of punishment provide otherwise, be fixed by giving credit for the

period of service earlier rendered by him in the higher service, class or

category.

17

(f) Seniority of a retrenched and reappointed person:

The seniority of a member of a service who is re-appointed after having

been retrenched, owing to reduction of staff as a measure of economy,

shall be determined in accordance with the date of such reappointment.

Provided that the inter-se seniority of such members absorbed in the

same service, class or category shall be determined -

(i) In any case in which re-appointment of such members was mad in

consultation with Public Service Commission or the other selecting

authority, in accordance with the order of merit or the order of preference

indicated by the said Public Service Commission or other selecting

authority; and

(ii) in any other case, in accordance with the total length of service, in the

same, equivalent or higher service, class or category put in by such

member prior to retrenchment.

(g) The seniority of an approved candidate, who takes up military service

before joining his appointment to any service, class or category shall, on

his appointment to such service, class or category, on his return from the

said military service, be determined in accordance with the order of

preference shown in the authoritative list of candidates approved for

appointment to the service, class or category.

34. PREPARATION OF INTEGRATED OR COMMON SENIORITY LIST

OF PERSONS BELONGING TO DIFFERENT UNITS OF

APPOINTMENT:

Where as integrated or common seniority list of a particular class, or

category or grade in any service belonging to different units of

appointment has to be prepared for the purpose of promotion or

appointment by transfer, to a class or category having different units of

appointment or for any other purpose, such an integrated or common

seniority list shall be prepared with reference to the provision of sub-rule

(a) of rule 33, provided that the seniority list of the persons inter-se

belonging to the same units shall not be disturbed.

Explanation: The principle specified in this rule shall be applicable even

where a common integrated list is required to be prepared for categories

in different services classes or categories.”

13. It is submitted that the procedure contemplated for effecting

promotions commences with the constitution of Selection Committee and

consideration of the personal files of each of the employees who come within

the Zone of consideration, grant of sufficient time for aggrieved employees in

18

respect of the provisional seniority to raise objections, consideration of

objections and the then final publication of the Seniority List.

14. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the

Official Respondents have not followed all these procedures. It is further

submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Government

is obligated to prepare integrated Seniority List belonging to the different units

apart from preparing Seniority List for each unit. Learned Counsel would

submit that the Government has not undertaken this exercise so far. He has

drawn the attention of this Court to the documents filed along with the Writ

Petition to indicate that in the initial list sent by the office of the Regional

Manager, Rajahmundry, dated 29.04.2023 (Ex.P.1), the names of the Writ

Petitioners have figured from Sl.No.25 to 72, whereas in the impugned

Proceedings dated 15.05.2023 (Exs.P.2 & P.3), the names of the Writ

Petitioners are missing and also the names of the candidates who are not

found in the Proceeding dated 29.04.2023, have been included, thereby

promoting them.

15. It is the submission of the Writ Petitioners that except Respondent

No.6, 10 & 11, the other Unofficial Respondents are Juniors to the Writ

Petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would also submit that

for the purpose of reckoning seniority, the Respondents ought to have

considered the dates of appointment. The law contemplates that the Seniority

shall be reckoned only based on the date of appointment. He would also draw

the attention of this Court to the Rule 33 of the Rules, 1996 (extracted supra),

which clearly indicate that the seniority of a person in a service, class,

category or grade, shall, unless he had been reduced to a lower rank as a

punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such

service, class, category or grade. He would submit that when once the

employees of APSRTC have become the employees of the Government as

per the Act No.36 of 2019, the Rules, 1996 shall apply to the employees of the

APSRTC as per the Act No.36 of 2019; that reference to old Circulars and the

19

old arrangement by the Government is contrary to law, illegal and irrational.

He would submit that in the name of Circulars, fixing the seniority based on

Divisions after the Act No.36 of 2019 had come into force is completely

unacceptable.

16. This Court has perused the contents of the Act No.36 of 2019. This

Court has also noted the fact that vide Proceeding dated 01.04.2022, the

Government had given Orders to the Managing Director of APSRTC stating

that all the employees of the Public Transport Department are recognised as

employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and are governed by the

Rules, 1996, and there cannot be any division in this regard. The exercise

which is undertaken by the Official Respondents commencing from

29.04.2023 (Ex.P.1) and the subsequent Proceedings dated 15.05.2023 do

not indicate anywhere that the Selection Committee has issued Proceedings

after taking into consideration the personal files of all the Conductors Grade-II

for the purpose of promotion to Conductors Grade-I. It does not indicate

anywhere that the procedure laid down under the Rules, 1996 have been

followed by preparing and publishing the Provisional Seniority List etc.,.

17. The Proceeding of the Government does not indicate that the

Official Respondents have invited objections from the aggrieved persons from

out of the Provisional Seniority List and the publication of the Final Seniority

List. The impugned Proceeding would indicate that the mandatory statutory

procedures have been given a complete go-by by the Official Respondents.

Although it is the contention of the Writ Petitioners that except the Unofficial

Respondent Nos.6, 10 & 11 all the other Unofficial Respondents are Juniors to

the Writ Petitioners herein, neither the Writ Petitioners nor the Official

Respondents have placed on record the comparative list of the Writ

Petitioners and Unofficial Respondents to indicate the initial dates of joining

into service as Conductors Grade-II.

18. At this stage, Sri Y. Phani Babu, leaned Counsel appearing on

behalf of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC

20

has placed on record the Official Gazette published on 27.10.2023 indicating

that by virtue of Act No.41 of 2023, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has

amended the Act No.36 of 2019. Two provisos were added to Section 5 of the

Act No.36 of 2019, which are usefully extracted hereunder:

“ACT No. 41 of 2023.

AN ACT FURTHER TO AMEND THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE

ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (ABSORPTION OF EMPLOYEES

INTO GOVERNMENT SERVICE) ACT, 2019.

Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of Andhra Pradesh in

the Seventy fourth Year of Republic of India as follows,-

1. (1) This Act may be called the Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation (Absorption of Employees into Government

Service) (Amendment) Act, 2023.

(Short title and commencement)

(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force with effect on and

from the 27th December, 2019.

2. In the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

(Absorption of Employees into Government Service) Act, 2019, the

following provisos shall be added to section 5.

(Amendment of Section 5.

Act No.36 of 2019)

"Provided that the APSRTC Employees' (Service) Regulations,

1964, APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and

APSRTC Employees' (CC&A) Regulations, 1967 shall continue

to govern the Service conditions of the employees of Andhra

Pradesh Public Transport Department (APPTD) until further rules

consequent to the absorption are framed by the Government

under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act 36 of 2019.

Provided further that no disciplinary proceedings shall be

deemed to be invalidated solely on the grounds of the initiation of

the said proceedings by the respective appointing

authorities/disciplinary authorities as notified under the APSRTC

Regulations previously applicable to the said employees

absorbed into Government service, Public Transport

Department.".

3. (1)xxxxxx.

(2)xxxxxx.

21

19. In this regard, it must be held that the amended Act No.41 of 2023

was issued on 27.10.2023 with effect from 27.12.2019, whereas the impugned

Orders, admittedly, were passed on 15.05.2023, for which the provisos which

are introduced in the amending Act No.41 of 2023 may also be made

applicable, in which event, the Official Respondents are required to give effect

to the APSRTC Employees‟ (Service) Regulations, 1964.

20. After merger has taken place, it is impermissible on the part of the

Official Respondents to contend and justify that they have effected the

promotions basing on the understanding or arrangement between the

Corporation and the Unions. When once the merger takes place and the

Government has issued Proceedings making the Andhra Pradesh State and

Subordinate Rules, 1996 applicable to the facts of the case, the Official

Respondents are not permitted to revert back to any such understandings or

arrangements with the Unions, as the said arrangements have become

obsolete and redundant after bringing in into force the Act.36 of 2019.

21. It is once again reiterated that the promotions shall be based on

seniority in that particular class of cadre or post. Therefore, what becomes

relevant is the date on which an employee has taken birth on the cadre of

Conductor Grade-II notwithstanding Divisional Seniority or Regional Seniority.

It is noticed by this Court that the impugned Proceedings are blissfully silent

about the date of appointment in the last post or cadre.

22. In the above premise, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

impugned Proceeding dated 15.05.2023 (Ex.P.2) is unsustainable in law, and

therefore, accordingly quashed. In the light of the above findings, this Court

deems it appropriate to issue the following directions:

i) It is mandatory on the part of the Official Respondents to follow

the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State and

Subordinate Rules, 1996 or the APSRTC Employees‟ (Service)

Regulations, 1964.

22

ii) That each Region shall be treated as a Unit for the purpose of

fixation of cadre strength, appointments and promotions etc.,

iii) The Official respondents are directed to follow the settled law

inasmuch as the date of appointment/date of joining in the

service/cadre/post shall be the date to be considered for fixation

of seniority as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Para Nos.80 &

81 in Suraj Parkash Gupta and others Vs. State of J&K and

Others : (2000) 7 SCC 561.

iv) The Respondents shall also prepare integrated Seniority List for

the cadre of Conductors for entire State in accordance with the

Rules, 1996 or the APSRTC Employees‟ (Service) Regulations,

1964.

23. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.

No Order as to Costs.

24. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

______________________________________

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Dt: 05.06.2025

JKS

L.R Copy to be marked.

23

44

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No.29813 OF 2023

05.06.2025

JKS

L.R Copy to be marked.

24