Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes APSRTC Conductor Promotions, Mandates Adherence to Government Service Rules

Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh - In a significant ruling affecting thousands of employees of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has quashed the promotion of 24 Grade-II Conductors to Grade-I. The court, presided over by Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, held that the promotions were unsustainable in law as they failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedures applicable to government employees following the absorption of APSRTC into the state's Public Transport Department.

Case Background

The writ petition was filed by 22 senior conductors who challenged a promotion order dated May 15, 2023. They contended that their juniors were promoted ahead of them in a process that was arbitrary and violated established service laws.

The core of the dispute stemmed from the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Absorption of Employees into Government Service) Act, 2019 (Act 36 of 2019). This legislation, effective from January 1, 2020, merged the APSRTC with the newly created Public Transport Department, thereby granting government employee status to all its staff. The petitioners argued that consequently, all service matters, including promotions, must be governed by the A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.

Petitioners' Arguments: Blatant Violation of Statutory Rules

The petitioners, represented by Advocate T.S. Venkata Ramana, argued that the APSRTC officials completely disregarded the statutory framework. Their key contentions were:

• Procedural Lapses: The promotion process lacked transparency and fairness. No provisional seniority list was published, no objections were invited from employees, and no final seniority list was prepared, which are mandatory steps under the 1996 Rules.
• Juniors Promoted: The petitioners claimed that all but three of the 24 promoted employees were junior to them, with their appointments dating back to the early 1990s.
• Arbitrary Selection: The names of the promoted individuals did not even appear on the initial list of candidates being considered for promotion, suggesting a malicious intent to favor certain employees.
• Seniority Principle Ignored: They asserted that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment to the cadre, a principle enshrined in Rule 33 of the 1996 Rules, which was ignored by the corporation.

APSRTC's Defence: Reliance on Obsolete Circulars

The APSRTC, represented by Standing Counsel Vinod Kumar Tarlada, defended its actions by citing old circulars from 1997. They argued that promotions were carried out based on a pre-merger system of "Divisional Seniority," treating the Kakinada and Rajahmundry divisions as separate units. They claimed the petitioners were junior to those promoted within their respective Kakinada division.

The corporation also pointed to a recent amendment (Act 41 of 2023) passed in October 2023, which retrospectively stated that old APSRTC service regulations would continue to apply until new rules were framed.

Court's Verdict: Post-Merger Arrangements Must Follow the Law

Justice Ramakrishna Prasad rejected the corporation's defence, emphasizing that once employees are absorbed into government service, old internal circulars and informal arrangements become obsolete and cannot override statutory rules.

The court noted in its judgment:

"When once the merger takes place and the Government has issued Proceedings making the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules, 1996 applicable... the Official Respondents are not permitted to revert back to any such understandings or arrangements... as the said arrangements have become obsolete and redundant after bringing in into force the Act 36 of 2019."

The court found that the entire promotion exercise was vitiated due to the complete disregard for mandatory statutory procedures. The judgment highlighted that "the impugned Proceeding would indicate that the mandatory statutory procedures have been given a complete go-by by the Official Respondents."

Final Directions and Implications

The High Court quashed the impugned promotion order dated May 15, 2023, and issued a series of directives for future promotions:

1. Follow Statutory Rules: The APSRTC must strictly follow the procedure laid down in either the A.P. State and Subordinate Rules, 1996, or the APSRTC Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964.
2. Date of Appointment is Key: Seniority must be fixed based on the employee's date of appointment or joining in the service/cadre, as settled by the Supreme Court.
   
   
3. Regions as Units: Each administrative region shall be treated as a single unit for appointments and promotions.
   
   
4. Integrated Seniority List: The authorities are directed to prepare a comprehensive, integrated seniority list for the entire conductor cadre in the state.

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to public sector undertakings undergoing mergers that they must transition fully to the legal framework governing government services, ensuring fairness, transparency, and adherence to the rule of law in all administrative actions.