Post-Merger Promotions in APSRTC Must Follow State Service Rules, Not Old Circulars; Seniority Based on Appointment Date: Andhra Pradesh High Court - 2025-06-05

Andhra Pradesh HC Quashes APSRTC Promotions, Mandates Adherence to State Service Rules

Amaravati: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the promotion of 24 Grade-II Conductors of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to Grade-I, ruling that promotions post the corporation's merger into government service must adhere to the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and not obsolete internal circulars.

In a significant order delivered by Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad , the court held that seniority must be determined by the date of an employee's first appointment to the service, and the entire promotion process must follow the statutory procedures, including the publication of seniority lists and calling for objections.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case, M R L SWAMY & Ors. vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. , was initiated by 22 senior conductors who were overlooked for promotion. They challenged the proceedings issued on May 15, 2023, which promoted 24 of their colleagues (unofficial respondents) to Grade-I Conductor positions.

The petitioners argued that following the absorption of APSRTC employees into government service via the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Absorption of Employees into Government Service) Act, 2019 (Act No. 36 of 2019), they became government employees. Consequently, their promotions should be governed by the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.

Key Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Counsel, Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, contended: - The promotion process was arbitrary and illegal as it bypassed the mandatory procedures laid down in Rules 24, 26, 33, and 34 of the 1996 Rules. - The authorities failed to constitute a proper selection committee, publish a provisional seniority list, invite objections, and then issue a final list. - Most of the promoted individuals were junior to the petitioners, whose appointments dated back to the early 1990s. - Seniority, as per Rule 33, must be based on the date of first appointment, a principle that was ignored.

APSRTC's Counsel, Sri Y. Phani Babu, argued: - The promotions were based on an old system of "divisional seniority," with separate lists for the Kakinada and Rajahmundry divisions. - The action was justified by circulars from 1997, which preserved this divisional setup for promotions of employees appointed before November 1994. - The petitioners, belonging to the Kakinada division, were junior to the candidates promoted from their division.

Court's Analysis and Judgment

Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad found the APSRTC's reliance on outdated circulars and divisional seniority to be legally untenable after the enactment of Act No. 36 of 2019.

"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."

The Court highlighted several procedural lapses: - The mandatory steps of preparing and publishing provisional and final seniority lists were completely ignored. - The promotion proceedings were "blissfully silent" about the employees' dates of appointment, which is the cornerstone for determining seniority. - The entire exercise violated the principles of natural justice and statutory law.

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Suraj Parkash Gupta and others Vs. State of J&K and Others , the High Court reiterated that the date of joining the service/cadre is the correct metric for fixing seniority.

Final Decision and Directions

Finding the impugned promotion order unsustainable in law, the High Court quashed the proceedings dated May 15, 2023. The Court issued the following binding directions to the APSRTC:

Follow Statutory Rules: The APSRTC must strictly follow either the A.P. State and Subordinate Rules, 1996, or the APSRTC Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964, for all service matters.

Region as Unit: Each Region shall be treated as a single unit for fixing cadre strength, appointments, and promotions.

Seniority by Appointment Date: The date of an employee's initial appointment into the cadre shall be the sole criterion for determining seniority.

Prepare Integrated Seniority List: The respondents must prepare an integrated, state-wide seniority list for the Conductor cadre in accordance with the rules.

The judgment sets a clear precedent for how service conditions, particularly promotions and seniority, must be handled for employees of state undertakings absorbed into government service, ensuring fairness and adherence to statutory law over outdated internal arrangements.