Promotions based on seniority must adhere strictly to the procedure outlined in service rules, treating the date of initial appointment as the primary determinant for seniority.

ORDER:

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.

1. 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-1. Relief sought in the present Writ Petition is as under;

“ 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.

Submissionsof 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 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 a