V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Challenging a Sub-clause contained in the Guidelines for allocation of employees between two Transport Corporations of the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, and also challenging the proceedings by which the petitioner is deemed to have been allotted to Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, Mr. P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for APSRTC and Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC).

3. The petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Officer on regular basis on 07.01.1997. She was promoted as a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer on 18.09.2004. The post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer is a State Cadre Post and hence the Presidential Order, viz. A.P. Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadre and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 has no application to the same.

4. The composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated under Andhra Pradesh Re- organization Act, 2014 with effect from 02.06.2014. The State Transport Corporation as it existed by that point of time was included as item No. 26 in the IX Schedule to the Act.

5. Therefore, after the bifurcation of the State and the birth of two independent State Road Transport Corporations, the question of allocation of employees between the Successor Corporations was taken up and draft Guidelines were issued on 13.04.2015.

6. By an Office Order, dated 13.04.2015, the petitioner was provisionally allotted to the APSRTC. When options were invited, the petitioner exercised option to be allocated to the TSRTC, by a letter dated 20.04.2015. Similarly, the 4th respondent was allotted to the TSRTC and he made a representation to be allocated to APSRTC.

7. Based upon the mutual request, a Note was prepared on 20.05.2015 indicating that there were 19 posts of Deputy Chief Accounts Officers and that as per the ratio of 58:42 prescribed under the Re-organization Act, 11 posts were allotted to APSRTC and 8 posts were allotted to TSRTC. The Note for mutual transfer of the petitioner and the 4th respondent was approved by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of APSRTC and the Joint Managing Director of TSRTC. However, it was made subject to finalization of Guidelines to be approved by the Board.

8. In fact, pursuant to the approval of the Note, the 4th respondent joined as Deputy Chief Accounts Officer in APSRTC in the place of the petitioner and the petitioner submitted joining report on 04.06.2015 in TSRTC. But, she was not issued with posting orders in TSRTC.

9. Since she was left in the lurch without posting orders for more than 20 days, the petitioner requested the APSRTC at least to allow her to work. She was permitted to work in APSRTC.

10. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 8056 of 2016, challenging the refusal of TSRTC to issue posting orders. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14.03.2016 directing the petitioner to make an application to the TSRTC and directing them to consider the same. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation. But, the same was rejected by TSRTC.

11. The petitioner also made a representation to APSRTC and APSRTC also took up the matter with TSRTC. In the meantime, the 4th respondent, who was originally allocated to TSRTC and who opted to go in the place of the petitioner to APSRTC, gained promotion to the next higher post of Chief Financial Manager.

12. Ultimately, final orders of allocation were issued on 20.12.2017 wherein both the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent were shown as having been allocated to APSRTC. Therefore, challenging the said proceedings, dated 20.12.2